Talk:Bank Hall/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

It is good to see the strong efforts that have been put into this article recently, it is well illustrated, of significant scope, and has followed some good guidelines. I am concerned that sometimes features have been adopted over-eagerly, leading to some confusion.

There are too many sub-sub-sections, all of those in sections 1,6,7 should be merged into their parent sub-sections. Done

The article has followed WP:SS well, but I am not sure that some of a forked articles are noteworthy. I've tagged them for merger. It would be best to combine into one, substantial, in research and prose.

The lead section is too skimpy, an article of this length deserves two good sized paragraphs, intoducing context and establishing notablity, and summarising the content. Done

The tone is generally obeys the NPOV policy, though at times seems to speak in a first person plural "We" tone. The prose is uneven, and sometimes lacks the formal register, falling into "locally known", "it has been said", etc. A recent copyedit for more basic spelling and grammar errors fixed some minor points, but I feel a full copyedit would do it good.

The order of the sections needs to be redone more logically. How about:

Lead 1. History 2. Architecture, include "Clock tower" and "decorative details" in here aswell. 3. Estate, trim text and use pictures with alt text to illustrate the minor sheds and other buildings 4. [Year commmenced] restoration - here include information of the dipidation and the action committee. 5. Gardens 6. External Links Done

I feel the sections "In the media" and "Snowdrop Carpets" contain interesting information, with better than the rest quality of references, but think that it could be better presented woven elsewhere into the article. Done

I have only gotten to about half the photos to check for licenses so far, but most seem to be freely so. The picture of daffodils, is unfortunately out of focus. The picture of the Gardener's house is not very good, it does not show any interesting detail, it is too dark, and the house just looks like a modern red-brick. I am not sure it is notable. This article overall is well illustrated. Done

"The Great Hall is believed to have been similar to the neighbouring Rufford Old Hall's Great Hall. The 1608 house is believed to have had a timber extension where the east wing stands today, with the possibility of other wooden extensions that where later demolished as the house grew. In 1692, Thomas Fleetwood, had the first great attempt at draining Martin Mere.[7]" By whom? Done

The History section does not give a coherent history of the building, but rather a potted set of trivia about previous occuptants. Try to avoid including bitty information and give a narrative of the Hall. Doing...

"Bank Hall has an extensive number of decorative features, from the west wing bay window to the artificial windows on the kitchen chimneystack wall. "

How about: "Bank Hall has an extensive number of decorative features, such as the West Wing bay window, [say why] and the artificial windows on the kitchen chimneystack wall, [say why].^{[citation needed]} Done

In the Restoration section, many of the sentences are poorly expressed and connected; other times there is too much local detail.

"The Bank Hall Action Group, formed in 1995, are a voluntary group with the purpose of raising public awareness of Bank Hall and eventually restoring it. They hold year-round events to raise funds and awareness of the building's importance and condition and the urgent need for action to save it. The Heritage Trust for the North West have assisted them in raising awareness of Bank Hall and will run a visitor centre there when the building is restored.[35]"

Try:

" The Bank Hall Action Group was formed in 1995 to raise funds and awareness to restore Bank Hall". [The following sentences should be deleted unless they concrete steps taken towards this goal. Local events or days out, while worthy, do not merit inclusion.] Done

References. I commend contributors for their work formatting references, clearly attention has been paid to this important requirement. Note that reliable architectural sources, and properly published books are prefereable to self published material and local newspapers. Many of the sources are not of this standard.

Images. As mentioned above the article is well illustrated, and good work on taking and uploading many photos. Though some are too dark to show the buildings and should be taken in daylight. As mentioned in the peer review, this is an article should would benefit from alternative text for visually imparied readers. Done

I'm putting the article on hold to give us time to address some of these concerns. Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the proposed merger of Carr House is inapropriate as this is a seperate building with its own unique history and seperate family which can be expanded. I would like to object the possible merger for this reason as this will then create too much information that is available to be added into the Bank Hall article which would be irrelevant to people that want to know about Bank Hall, even though carr house is in the estate, it has its own story and history. The Bank Hall Action Group page i would also like to be left seperate as that too can also be expanded. The only reason it was created was due to the fact that again too much information would spoil the flow of the Bank Hall article. So a sub section was created as recommended in the peer review. I shall work hard to get the article up to scratch for GA status and i hope will one day be good enough for a FA status. Many thanks for the feedback and I shall work at restructuring. The Restoration of the building has not started yet so section 4 cannot happen... but i will try to merge the articles more and the sub cats into one cat with bolded titles for the buildings Bankhallbretherton (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Restoration. Restoration can be "Putative restoration" is you wish, but there have been previous attempts at it, you can combine a very brief desciption of those with the current plans. Please ask if you have any further questions, I hope I don't sound harsh, but this article has potiential. --Ktlynch (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will this be passed or failed? There's been no changes on here in a month now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello if you look at the doing and done list above you will see what has been edited and the edits are still in progress I am working on it in my spare time, fingers crossed I will have a new intro section with a noteable worth reading section very soon!Bankhallbretherton (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; hopefully everything will be fixed soon, GA reviews are not meant to be kept open indefinitely. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should actually all be done now! can someone re-review it and see if it is worthy yet? cheers! Bankhallbretherton (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a read through and see if anything else needs fixing. If not I'll pass it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #2 isn't working and needs to be replaced. Done
The Edward Frederick Crippin needs a citation. Done
"Legh Keck also attended church regularly his religious beliefs was Chuch of England." huh? also, the para. needs a cite. Done

I haven't gotten very far but that's to start you off. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the article I don't think these points have been sufficiently addressed, especially the first two.

The tone is generally obeys the NPOV policy, though at times seems to speak in a first person plural "We" tone. The prose is uneven, and sometimes lacks the formal register, falling into "locally known", "it has been said", etc. A recent copyedit for more basic spelling and grammar errors fixed some minor points, but I feel a full copyedit would do it good.

The History section does not give a coherent history of the building, but rather a potted set of trivia about previous occuptants. Try to avoid including bitty information and give a narrative of the Hall.

In the Restoration section, many of the sentences are poorly expressed and connected; other times there is too much local detail.

References. I commend contributors for their work formatting references, clearly attention has been paid to this important requirement. Note that reliable architectural sources, and properly published books are prefereable to self published material and local newspapers. Many of the sources are not of this standard.

My own thoughts are that there is a huge amount of information here but I feel it has led to the article being insufficiently focussed on Bank Hall, the building.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone editing or reviewing this article might also care to note the long list of links to disambiguation pages that need to be fixed, as set out towards the top of the talk page. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Done[reply]

I have done some work on the article some quick fixes, but in the long term i really want to address the issues regarding the "first two sections" The history of Bank Hall is more so surrounded by the families that lived there. I can re edit my work to fit just around the building then have a family section after it, but i need to know how you would like me to set this out?? Also "local detail" andf the "tone" of the article i am struggling with as I cannot see how you want me to word it any differently. Some examples would be good to get me going.... The way Wizardman expressed what needed changing was very useful so any feed back put in that type of context would be very much appreciated as repeating what has been said before does not help, (if it did help then i would have done it in the first place!!) I really really want to get this article to GA status! many thanks Bankhallbretherton (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you ought to look at some GAs on similar topics. I found one, not a GA, a B class by User:Peter I Vardy. it's Arley Hall. I think this is a good example as to the length and scope of a good article. You have made the mistake of thinking the article needs every tiny bit of info you can gather but it's more a case of being very selective and remembering sometimes "less is more". Others might disagree, but I think the sections on owners could be cut, if they are sufficiently notable they could have their own articles linking to Bank Hall, if not a mention is sufficient. I'll try to copyedit a bit of the article and post it on your talk page to show just how much I would cut.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been on GA hold for approaching 2 months, by far the longest "on hold" of any article currently at GAN. Normally "on hold" might last for "a week or so", says Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, where "the problems are minor or easy to fix". It doesn't look as though that's the case here. It might be best for the nomination to close now, for work to take place without pressure of time and for a new GA nomination to be made in due course. There's no shame in having an unsuccessful GA nomination, of course (I've had a GA reassessed as a "delist" despite my efforts and then worked it back up - these things happen). Bencherlite ^Talk 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this; after two months of being on hold, we're only slightly closer to a GA. Look through the points everyone brought up, and after modifying the article, I would go through a peer review then come back to GAN. Having something on hold indefinitely is not what the process is for, unfortunately. You have a lot of suggestions that you can use though, so it's no problem. I'm going to mark this as a failed GAN. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK i will have a good go at sorting it out cheers, but could i have a little help? Bankhallbretherton (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]