Talk:St Joseph's Convent, Taunton/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 16:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Harrias, I have completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review, and I find that this article meets all criteria for Good Article status. I do have a few comments and questions that should be addressed prior to passage to GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. Great job on illustrating the history of the historic landmark! -- Caponer (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article stands alone as a concise overview. It defines the convent, establishes context, explain why the convent is notable, and summarizes the most important points of its history. The lede could stand to have a sentence or two regarding its architecture from that section.

I haven't added anything about the architecture, because it is hard to summarise that information; there is a lot of detail, and it is far from my area of expertise. Harrias ^talk 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image in the template was taken by the author, is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0, and is therefore free for use here.
The Somerset locator map is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore free to use in this article.
Taunton should be wiki-linked and included in the first paragraph to establish the convent's location.

Added. Harrias ^talk 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest rewriting this sentence as: "The buildings were sold out of the Catholic church in 1976, and were redeveloped as residential flats in 2005."

Done. Harrias ^talk 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph, would it be appropriate for the sentence to read as: "The main building was begun in 1772 as a free hospital for the poor, but funding ran out two years later, and it was completed as a private residence."

Done. Harrias ^talk 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't hurt to wiki-link Winchester in the second paragraph.

Done. Harrias ^talk 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest rewriting the years as twenty-six or 26 per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers.

Done. Harrias ^talk 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is well-written, utilizes content from references which are internally-cited below, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

History

Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, inline citations are usually reserved for the end of sentences and paragraphs, but this is merely a suggestion.

I prefer to place them after a comma, rather than stack them at the end of a sentence, as I feel it makes it more obvious where each fact is referenced from. WP:INTEGRITY suggest that such placing for aesthetics is fine. Harrias ^talk 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph, quibbles seems a bit Wikipedia:COLLOQUIAL. Would "disagreements" or "conflicts" work better here?

I don't think quibble is at all a colloquialism, I think this might be more a BREng/AmEng variation. I can try and change it if you want, but it has a subtly different meaning to either disagreement or conflict, and I'm struggling to get the right feel with another word. Harrias ^talk 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had could probably be removed from the sentence: "When the abbess had visited the Lodge prior to the purchase..."

Done. Harrias ^talk 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest rewriting the final sentence in the second paragraph as: "The shell of the new body was completed by the autumn of 1808, but the work was delayed due to a lack of finances, as £1,908 had already been spent on altering the old building. This cost did not include the erection of the new wing, thus the constructions costs were already far surpassing the original estimate." Or something to this effect.

Done. Harrias ^talk 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image of St George's Rectory is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and is therefore available for use here.
The final sentence of the fifth paragraph could be reworded as: "In 2005, the building complex was converted to "high quality" residential flats."

Done. Harrias ^talk 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is well-written, utilizes content from references which are internally-cited within, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

1809 miracle

This may seem silly, but I would wiki-link the first mention of miracle, which may provide more context to why this is relevant.
This subsection is well-written, utilizes content from references which are internally-cited within, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

1851 case of Augusta Talbot

Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, inline citations are usually reserved for the end of sentences and paragraphs, but this is merely a suggestion.
This subsection is well-written, utilizes content from references which are internally-cited within, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Architecture

The buildings image is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and is therefore allowable here.
Does the main building have a definable architectural style? Is it Georgian?

Nothing in any sources that I've come across, and I don't know enough myself to judge (though that would be WP:OR anyway, although it would not really be a contentious issue! Harrias ^talk 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is well-written, utilizes content from references which are internally-cited within, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Thanks for your review, definitely one of the most professional I have come across in a while. I think I have dealt with the majority of your points, though I have noted a couple of times when I have not followed your suggestions: I am receptive to further discussion on those points. Harrias ^talk 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, thank you for speedily addressing all my above questions and concerns. I've reviewed and re-reviewed the article, and I find that you have included the majority of my suggestions. As for the few minor points like quibble and inline citation placement, they are not deal breakers, and are outside of the criteria for Good Article status. Therefore, it is my privilege to pass this article to Good Article status. I appreciate all your diligence in crafting this article and it has been a pleasure reviewing it! -- Caponer (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]