Talk:St Catherine's Court/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 19:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am Reviewing this artist for possible WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   @Rodw:See below. There are some grammatical issues to be taken care of. Shearonink (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

   Everything's been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   References all check out and conform with each other. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Ran Checklinks and the references are all clean as a whistle - no problems. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

   Checklinks didn't catch Ref #9 which has gone dead. Please adjust/correct as necessary. Shearonink (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

   I've checked & revised.— Rod ^talk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

   I see that my previous concerns have been addressed but there is now an additional issue - please see "One last thing" section. Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool - no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Lays out the facts, conveys the building's timeline well. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Very stable, no edit wars found. Shearonink (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Nicely-done, image permissions are all clear. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Please see "One last thing" below. Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

   Congrats, it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Grammar, etc

• In lead section

It is a Grade I ...should be... Wikilinked. The first incidence of Grade II* and Grade III in the article should also be Wikilinked.

"listed" was wikilinked to Listed building but I have changed it so the whole of "Grade I listed" is wikilinked. If I wikilink the others they would all point to the same article & therefore would be a case of overlinking.— Rod ^talk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph uses the word it a total of 6 times, This paragraph should be recrafted - the overuse of "it" is jarring to the reader.

I have changed several of them to "the manor", "the property" or "the property".— Rod ^talk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• After spending £3 million on refurbishments, They undertook renovation ...should be... After spending £3 million on refurbishments,[9] they undertook renovation

• Capitalisation changed

A couple other things with this sentence:

I think it is important to mention why Seymour & Flynn bought furniture from Littlecote House - there was very little furniture actually in the house itself.

the sentence is a little unclear. It almost implies that Seymour/Flynn brought in furniture from another house they owned or something but they bought certain pieces from Sir Seton Wills.

I've made various tweaks to this to try to explain.— Rod ^talk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

what is the difference here between "refurbishments" and "renovation"

My understanding is that refurbishment is about decorative aspects, whereas renovation includes structural work.— Rod ^talk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• The north front, which is the oldest part of the house is Elizabethan but incorporates parts of the earlier priory grange.[1] It has sloping gables to reduce the load on the walls beneath them. ...should be... The first sentence is a fragment and confusingly constructed. I am not sure if a comma was intended instead of the period but in any case, there needs to be some adjustment of the wording & punctuation here.Shearonink (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've had a go at rephrasing these sentances - is that any better?— Rod ^talk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Much better - thanks for all your adjustments. Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

One last thing

@Rodw: Per a recent RFC on the issue, the Daily Mail is now not generally accepted as a reliable source. The 2 references that use this newspaper/media publication as their source will have to be adjusted to use something else. Pending these corrections, I will be able to finish up this Review within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no interest in revisiting that RFC so I have replaced them with articles from The Telegraph. I can look for further sources if needed.— Rod ^talk 17:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)