Jump to content

Talk:Aubrey House

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image request

[edit]

The article would benefit from a photograph or two of the house itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aubrey House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Aubrey House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 09:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time


Tick box

[edit]

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:


Comments on GA criteria

[edit]
Pass
Query


Fail
  • Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose mainly serviceable and readable, but is choppy, with single sentence paragraphs, list sentences, and unfinished information, so we feel a little teased in places rather than informed. This is related to the broad coverage criteria mentioned below. Some time spent filling out detail will hopefully fill out the prose as well, so we informative paragraphs which explain and describe. Organisation needs attention - we get this as an entire paragraph: "In 1873 the Taylors sold Aubrey House due to Peter's ill health and moved to Brighton." And then two paragraphs later, and in a separate section we get: "The house was bought from the Taylors by William Cleverley Alexander..." Also, see MOS:SURNAME for use of surnames rather than first names. Also we get this as the final paragraph: "A London County Council blue plaque was unveiled in 1960 to commemorate the notable residents of Aubrey House." With no indication of who is mentioned on the plaque. Again, some time spent on building up the article, and looking at it from a reader's point of view will help. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The follow on paragraph concerning the Taylors sale is demonstrative of the post-Taylor era of the house; it has never since had such a storied history or such prominent owners. I've used first names to distinguish the husband and wife Alexanders from each other. I've listed the personages on the plaque. No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lacking in information. Time could be spent gathering more information and building the article a little more, as indicated above. Research will normally throw up more sources to explore, which in turn will throw up more sources. I just spent a few minutes on the internet and found these: [1], a local study, but plenty of info and some nice images; and a book that could be useful: Aubrey House, Kensington, 1698-1920 by Florence M. Gladstone, published by A. L. Humphreys in 1922. Looking at this Lost Hospital of ondon blog: [ http://ezitis.myzen.co.uk/aubreyhouse.html], and it gives a slightly more informative and helpful summary than is present in the current article. Our article says: "Between 1914 and 1920 Aubrey House was used as a hospital as part of the war effort for World War I", apart from the clunky language, the impression given is that the entire house was used as a hospital, while the blog entry makes it clearer. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm wary of citing the wordpress blog, though I believe utterly in its veracity. The blog did not exist at the time I wrote the article in 2012. The very next paragraph cites the Lost Hospitals blog with the information you found lacking. No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only one image used in the article, and we have nothing of the building itself, even though it is an old building and fair use images are available, as indicated by this blog. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

[edit]

Review on hold for seven days to discuss issues raised so far. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note left on nominator's talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on the work done so far. Do you think there's a realistic chance of attending to all of the issues raised in a reasonable space of time? SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed

[edit]

Closed as not listed. Article still does not meet GA criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I didn't notice the above prompt. No Swan So Fine (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aubrey_House&oldid=1205480797"