Talk:Tabley House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Tabley House 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 17, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know

Assessment Report[edit]

  1. The stub article needs to be expanded.
  2. It should make use of sections.
  3. Photos need to be added.
  4. References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

Peter I. Vardy 14:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

extraction of brine[edit]

Extraction of brine leading to the collapse of a house is a story that needs briefly to be told. Otherwise it's too strange and mysterious.--Wetman (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

Yesterday I had a quick read of the article and my first impressions were that this was a good article. I tweaked the grammer of the WP:Lead a bit and added a couple or so of wiklinks.

I'm now going to work my way through the article section by section, but leaving the lead until last. I may fix any minor problems as I go, so I will only be highlighting any "problems" that I can't or won't fix. Pyrotec (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations, another "Cheshire" GA. Pyrotec (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)