Talk:Prior Park/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 08:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	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.	~~Almost, see comments, several cn tags, but look to be easy to source~~ fixed
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pending
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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	~~Notes in comments, some minor tags in commons need fixing~~ Fixed
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	~~Layout needs some work, but images good and captions are fine~~ Fixed
	7. Overall assessment.

Initial comments:

The lead is partially sourced, but it appears that most of the content is mentioned in the body text. Per WP:LEDE the lead generally is a summary of sourced content in the body text, so I'd suggest a bit of cleanup; essentially taking out footnotes of everything mentioned (and sourced) in the body, and if anything is only in the lede, perhaps it could also be incorporated into the article so as to have a "clean" lead section. Overall, I'd clean up the article a bit and then maybe expand the lead just a lttle

I've removed the references in the lead (as info already cited elsewhere. What else do you think needs to be added?— Rod ^talk 08:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see just a touch more wikilinking of some of the technical terms, such as to Bay (architecture), Palladian bridge, etc...

I've done those two (although Palladian bridge is a red link).— Rod ^talk 08:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the images (particularly the old sketches) have a flag at commons that they need a PD-US tag added; their copyright appears to be OK, but might want to clean up that little glitch.

I'm not expert in this area. I added "PD-1923", "PD-old" to the first one but it is still showing as a problem - any advice appreciated.— Rod ^talk 08:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig flagged one sentence that appears to be a word-for-word copy and a couple other things that are a bit too closely paraphrased; I view these as relatively minor problems, but they need to be fixed.

I've tweaked a couple where there were more than 3 or 4 words exactly the same.— Rod ^talk 08:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The images are also sandwiching text a bit, I'd suggest alternating them right/left in a more spread out fashion , perhaps move the Willis sketch down to the Architecture section, and so on.

I've had a fiddle with these and they look OK on my screen.— Rod ^talk 08:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, sourcing looks excellent, I spotted a few sentences that needs sourcing and tagged them.

I've added a few more references where you had indicated.— Rod ^talk 08:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar and style suggested fixes are in hidden text  within the body of the article itself, just toss when read or fixed.

I've done some of these, however I'm not really happy with trying to seperate the actions of Allen from the development of Bath Stone as they are intricately related.— Rod ^talk 08:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few minor copyedits as I was going through the article, all relatively minor -- you are free to toss them, but figure that if I edited it, there was some sort of problem that needs a fix, slightly awkward phrasing, a punctuation glitch, or something.

All for now, more to come. Let me know if you have addressed these and I will review again. Montanabw^(talk) 08:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have just got back from 10 days holiday and still "catching up". I will review and address your comments asap. — Rod ^talk 16:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I've had a co at these as indicated above. Is there anything else you think is needed.— Rod ^talk 08:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I'm going to run earwig again and see if I can suss out the copyright tags and be back. Montanabw^(talk) 06:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple minor edits to fix a couple small things (if you don't care for my changes, you are most certainly welcome to fix those areas some other way. I added PD-US tags to the older images -- I think they are in compliance now. Glad to pass this article! Montanabw^(talk) 06:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passed!