Talk:Bramshill House/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I don't think this is going to be difficult. In truth, the article seems to me of Featured Article quality, let alone Good Article, and I shall have no problem in confirming that it meets all the GA criteria. The two black and white Country Life 1923 images might, I suspect, attract flak at FAC, but they're in Commons, which is good enough for me here.

Before I cut the ribbon I offer you a few minor quibbles and queries. None are important enough to affect GA status, but you might like to ponder:

• General
  • Monarchs: you sometimes pipe their titles (
    Queen Elizabeth I et al) and sometimes don't (e.g. King Charles I
    ). I think you could follow your own lead ("…the 14-year-old Edward III…) and lose the "King" or "Queen" altogether in most places, though possibly not for the Romanians.
• Lead
  • "Listing/listed" – move link up to first mention?
• Modern times
  • Last sentence:
    WP:CLAIM
    – it does rather look as though you doubt the Home Office's statement.
• Exterior
  • "the late art connoisseur" – not clear why Blunt is "the late", being no deader than Lees-Milne, Lucas-Tooth and others. Also not clear why Lucas-Tooth's opinion is notable.
  • "…traditionally attributed to architect John Thorpe …" – Two points here. Without a definite article this is tabloidese ("Premier David Cameron…"). Secondly, it could do with a citation.
  • "Bramshill House is three storeys high …" – Three "and"s in this sentence. Rather too many?
• South
  • "Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian orders" – blue links wanted?
  • "a florid perforated pediment in strapwork" – I can do "florid" and "perforated" and can take a confident shot at "pediment", but "strapwork" has me hailing the coastguard. A link or footnote would be welcome.
  • "architectural fore-ground" – unusual hyphen.
  • "a three feet three inch high – I get in a tangle with hyphens, and I don't pose as an expert, but they seem lacking here. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
• North
  • "widely spaced bays" – ditto.
• East and west
  • "octagonal in shape" – "in shape" seems unneeded.
  • "supported by columns" – not clear if this is the one or all three.
• Grounds and garden
  • "The grounds form part …. there are more than 60 words in this sentence, and I got lost mid-way and had to start again. Could you break it up?
  • "The fir trees on the grounds" – "on" seems odd. Perhaps "in"?
• Legends
  • "An alternative theory – "theory" seems rather a dignified word for a cock-and-bull tale. Perhaps just "story"?

Those are my few quibbles. Nothing to frighten the horses. Over to you. I shan't bother putting the article on hold. – Tim riley (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the prompt review, I've addressed your points. Yes, Eric has very high standards for GAs which is a good thing as it often means they're on course for FA! I'm glad I waited on this. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One or two things remain that I might mildly quibble at if the article comes to FAC, but no question about its GA credentials. Tim riley (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   :

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

As I suspected, an easy task for the reviewer. Nothing borderline about this article. It gives me much pleasure to promote it. Tim riley (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Tim. As you say, it still needs a bit of polishing before it's ready for FAC, so we won't be rushing off there. Eric Corbett 17:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it isn't quite ready for FAC yet but clearly has potential, and hopefully Yngva can find some more details over the next few weeks. Thanks for the review Tim!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]