Talk:Barrington Court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleBarrington Court has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starBarrington Court is part of the National Trust properties in Somerset series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
May 1, 2013Good article nomineeListed
December 6, 2015Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Barrington Court/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

On first pass, this looks strong and ripe for promotion. Again, thanks for your work on it.

I've made some tweaks as I went along, and also added a touch of historical context at one point for us Yanks. Please feel free to revert anything you disagree with, though. Below are some points I couldn't immediately fix myself. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  • "The house was then mortgaged and, in 1625, to William Strode" -- should this sentence have the word "sold" in it?
  • " although the buildings has no furniture" -- should either be "buildings have" or "building has" for subject/verb agreement
  • "a screens passage with the Hall on the left" -- hall is capitalized here but wasn't above; this should be made consistent
  • "when it was given a new west front" -- what is "it" here?
  • "a single-story" -- should this be "storey" for consistency of spelling?
  • "agents house" -- I'm not familiar with this term, but it seems likely this should be "agent's house" or "agents' house"
  • "The gateway to the west of the forecourt was rebuilt in the 1920s with tall piers and moulded stepped caps, permits a full view of its symmetrical facade" -- this sentence needs to be sorted somehow. What is permitting a look at what here?
  • "or Parterre 70 metres" -- is it correct to capitalize "parterre" here?
  • "Barrington Court is noted for its Arts and Crafts-style gardens for which garden designer Gertrude Jekyll provided planting plans,[26] which are being used to restore the gardens, laid out in 1917 by J. E. Forbes, of the partnership Forbes & Tate, for Lieut-Col. A. Arthur Lyle, in a series of walled rooms that include a white garden, a rose and iris garden and a lily garden; however the planting scheme has been changed from that designed by Jekyll by Mrs Lyle in the 1960s" -- this seems like it could be chopped into 2 or 3 sentences for readability--it's quite convoluted.
  • " this includes all types of fruit and vegetables" -- I realize this is a pedantic point, I know, but "many types" would be better here than "all types"
  • "The local school at Barrington and Ilton also have" -- subject/verb agreement again, but I'm not sure where the error lies--is this one school or two? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for spotting these errors with my grammar - hopefully they have all been sorted now. If there are other issues please don't hesitate to let me know.— Rod talk 09:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Nope, that'll do it. Thanks for the quick responses! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. See minor clarity points above. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
1b. 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:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. 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:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barrington Court. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 17:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

There are a few options for lead images which I thought might be considering so I've put them in a gallery above. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Richard, Thanks for identifying these. I don't have strong preference. Personally I like the composition of the second image with the walls at the front but the fourth one "at an angle" is probably best for showing the architectural features.— Rod talk 10:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)