Talk:Treasurer's House, Martock/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 07:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Grabbing this one for a review. Miyagawa (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	No issues.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Meets al requirements.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Article is fully cited.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All are reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Sadly, a lack of sources means that the article cannot be as comprehensive as I might like, but that shouldn't stop it from going to GA as it has included all available works.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No problems with either image.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Both fine.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

• Lead
  • Since the lead is meant to summarise the overall article, the Grade I listed status and the oldest house part should be incorporated into the body of the article. In fact any more information you have on when the building was grade I listed would also be handy (slotted into the history subsection.
    • I've added these bits into the history section.— Rod ^talk 07:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• History
  • It seems like we're missing about 500 years of history here - is there really nothing to add for this period?
    • This is one of the problems with the last few National Trust properties in Somerset I'm trying to get to GA (to complete another GT) - there are very limited sources that I can find from which to work. Meaning that, although short, I'm trying to make them as comprehensive as the sources will allow.— Rod ^talk 07:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, I just had to ask the question to ensure the comprehensiveness bit of the requirements was met. Miyagawa (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Architecture
  • When was the limewash removed?
    • 1995 added.— Rod ^talk 07:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Those are the points that immediately come to mind, I'll take another look once they've been addressed. I also can't help but wonder if it is comprehensive enough in the subject matter. Miyagawa (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think there's anything outstanding - its just a shame there isn't more on an interesting building. Happy to pass. Miyagawa (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)