Talk:Fyne Court/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll complete this review soon ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments[edit]

The first paragraph of the lead should be expanded to summairse the article per WP:LEAD. I know that the article is short but at the moment the lead seems a little disorganised (a small expansion of the opening will do)

Furthermore, nothing prior to 1894 is mentioned in the lead

"The main building of Fyne Court burned down in 1894" - burned or burnt? I'm never too sure but I think "burnt" is more common in British English... ("burnt" is mentioned in the history section)
"In the grounds is a folly with two 4 metres (13 ft)" - imperial should be before metric
The number of secondry sources in the article should pass that aspect

References[edit]

No dead links, and the citations are formatted correctly so this meets the GA criteria

On hold[edit]

The shortness of this review reflects the article! Overall it is well written and the sources are excellent with no original research etc. The only reason why I'm putting this on hold is due to the organisation of the lead (some expansion on its history would be required). But the above points are very minor, so I'll leave this on hold until they can be addressed. Thanks ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments which I have attempted to address.— Rod ^talk 17:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted[edit]

Thank you for addressing them, with all things considered this now meets the GA criteria. Short article and short review, people are going to frown on me... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]