Talk:Pitfour estate/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 01:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article. I'll begin with some initial comments sometime within the next 24-36 hours after a few readings and confirming some of the citations, etc. Thanks! --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Fergusons were Episcopalian" - link Episcopalian to the Scottish Episcopal Church. Americans will think of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States and wonder why you didn't say "Anglican"

Image review

• File:Pitfour House, side view.jpg - Questionable: Commons file tagged as PD but insufficient information to establishes how the image qualifies as PD (date of creation or publication, authorship or other publishing information lacking).
• File:Aberdeenshire UK location map.svg - OK properly tagged user-generated content, CC3.0
• File:Pitfour House map.png - OK - properly tagged Public Domain.
• File:Pitfour House, Aberdeenshire, side view - the 'Blenheim of the North'.jpg -- Questionable: Commons file tagged as PD but insufficient information to establishes how the image qualifies as PD (date of creation or publication, authorship or other publishing information lacking).
• File:Pitfour Chapel, cropped.jpg - OK properly tagged free content CC3.0
• File:Pitfour stables, cropped.jpg - OK properly tagged free content CC3.0
• File:Pitfour Lake showing island.jpg - OK properly tagged free content CC3.0
• File:Observatory at Drinnie's Wood.jpg - OK - CC2.0 UK Geograph

Review and criteria analysis

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I would recommend you seek an editor who does copyediting (Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors) to fix this article's shortcomings before seeking another GA review.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

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

   Article needs an intensive copyedit (c/e) for basic style/formatting errors and to fix awkward syntax and sentence structures. I think these copyediting concerns are too substantial and require too exhaustive of a time and effort to rectify that it should be done outside of the GA process, and such preparations should be done before seeking another GA review.

• The article was copy edited by the GOCE and Eric Corbett also did some copy editing.

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

   I would organize the article differently, but generally the article complies with the MOS policies required by criteria 1b.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Article does have an acceptable reference section

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Many statements in the article need to be properly sourced.

• • • Some examples might have been helpful.

1. C. No original research:

   Do not see any evidence or indication of original research.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Seems to cover the major aspects of the subject.

   B. Focused:

   Copyediting would improve the focus. The paragraphs tend to fall into tangents, rambling clauses. These issues interfere with proper adherence with the principles of WP:SUMMARY.

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems to be neutral. No evidence or indication of bias.

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No evidence or indication of edit-warring or content disputes.

5. 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:

   Most images are properly tagged, two questionable because of insufficient information.

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

   Images are relevant

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   1a criteria compliance would take too much time and is best done outside GA process.

• Thank you for reviewing this article, ColonelHenry; I did wait until after it had been copy edited by the GOCE before nominating it for GA and this was undertaken. Your comments are appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Adding a couple of further comments. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)