Talk:Woodspring Priory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Will have this one to you within 24 hours. At a first glance, the article looks comprehensive and well-written so the review shouldn't be long. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Lead

• The lead summarises the article well and meets the GA criteria and WP:LEAD. I would have suggested to change the opening sentence so that it reads out where Woodspring Priory is located, for example Woodspring Priory (originally Worsprynge or Worspring) is a former Augustinian priory situated in North Somerset or something similar to that. But the lead is fine.

History

• Some parts of this section feel too trivial, however it won't affect the GAN. I noticed one for example "Major and Mrs Hill continued to own the priory until 1928" - how about something like "The Major and his wife"?
• However the history section is informative, in depth and mostly well-written so this meets the GA criteria.

References

• The first reference appears to be broken
• https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/account/subscribe?nextpage=%2Fviewer%2Fbl%2F0000221%2F18970121%2F030%2F0003&gift=false Ref 18] and ref 19 appear to go nowhere as well

Close - promoted

Despite some sentences in the article feeling trivial and a couple of references that lead to nowhere - I think that this article already meets the GA criteria. It is broad in coverage, mostly well-written and well referenced. Because the concerns I have listed aren't really that important I feel it won't be necessary to put this on hold, so I'll promote this one! Well done on another Somerset GA! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 11:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)