Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The page is full of basic grammatical errors. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has since received a copyedit from another editor. If there are still errors could you give examples and I will try to address them.— Rod ^talk 07:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any outstanding points after the edits from Amandajm? The article is now in a limbo state awaiting affirmation of its GA status. James^x12345 21:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get as far as the third word of the second sentence before encountering another glaring grammatical error. This is not a GA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thank you for fixing that. Now please fix the rest of the article; then resubmit it for GA. This is not a GA at present. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I've fixed that, and reworded some of the intro. Will c/e article incrementally. James^x12345 20:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have now copy edited this article. Could you take another look and highlight any outstanding issues which need to be addressed?— Rod ^talk 08:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead could be expanded or combined to flow better. And what is with the "Sculpture of the Kings Head" is it not supposed to be "King's Head" and is this King John's head? And if so why is "Head" capitalized? Just wondering. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the lead. I've added the apostrophe and made lower case "king's head". I don't think there are any claims that it is a real likeness of King John and may not represent any specific monarch. As the article says the name "King John's Hunting Lodge" is a modern (early 20th century) invention.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: Since Rod has addressed the issues raised, therefore the article has kept its GA status.--Retrohead (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]