Talk:Mount Hope Estate/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Gyrobo (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- (1) Well-written
- (a) the prose is clear and concise
- "...also notable for the pre-1840 American formal garden..."
- "...named to recall Cornwall."
- "The property was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980, with a boundary increase in 1991 associated with the Iron and Steel Resources of Pennsylvania MPS (Multiple Property Submission)."
- "...the most formal ironmaster's mansion built in the area..."
What does this mean? Would a link to another article explain this?- ? I'm not sure how else to word this. The area was a major center for iron production, so there were many mansions in the area built by ironmasters. MHE was the most formal of these. I've added a wikilink to Polite architecture, which is not a very good article but will perhaps give an idea of what is meant. cmadler (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's good, I just wasn't certain what "formal" meant in this sense.
- ? I'm not sure how else to word this. The area was a major center for iron production, so there were many mansions in the area built by ironmasters. MHE was the most formal of these. I've added a wikilink to Polite architecture, which is not a very good article but will perhaps give an idea of what is meant. cmadler (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- "locally cut", "locally quarried"
- "Some, like Hope Church..."
- "...over the years, and today..."
Looks like a run-on sentence.- It is not a run-on sentence, because the two related independent clauses are properly punctuated using a comma and a coordinating conjunction (",and"). The coordinating conjunction could be replaced with a semicolon if you think that would be better. cmadler (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm reading it again and it makes more sense now.
- It is not a run-on sentence, because the two related independent clauses are properly punctuated using a comma and a coordinating conjunction (",and"). The coordinating conjunction could be replaced with a semicolon if you think that would be better. cmadler (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- (a) the prose is clear and concise
- (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines
Three disambiguation links- "...Mount Hope Estate and Winery, the Swashbuckler Brewing Company..."
- "...mid-to-late-19th century...", "19th century"
- "...1848-49...", etc.
- Architecture
Exterior has several small paragraphs that could be combined.
- (2) Factually accurate
- (a) it provides references to all sources
Dead links- "...and other events held throughout the year."
Examples are needed, or a citation that claims this.
- "As part of the Renaissance fair, Romito had a large crenellated wall built adjacent to the mansion."
- "The pub is also used for musical and comedy shows throughout the year, both during and after the faire season."
Outbuildings has a lot of unsourced statements.The infobox doesn't have sources for its National Register of Historic Places info, but the article does.
- (b) it provides in-line citations
- The lead
- Architecture
This whole section needs sources.- As noted in footnote #13, all the information in the section is drawn from the NRHP Nomination Form. I've added an inline ref to that note at the end of each of the subsections, but if you think it would be better I could go so far as to add it at the end of each paragraph. cmadler (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- (c) it contains no original research
- (a) it provides references to all sources
- (3) Broad in its coverage
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- (b) it stays focused on the topic
- (4) Neutral
- (5) Stable
- (6) Illustrated
- (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
- (b) images are relevant
Reviewer: Gyrobo (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I believe I've addressed all the concerns raised above. If I missed any, please let me know! Thanks, cmadler (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I responded after each point that I thought needed further explanation, but overall, it's looking really good.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC) - Done, unless I missed something. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've added a little source data to the references, and split the one note in the article into a separate Notes section. The article meets all the GA criteria, as far as I can tell, and I'm going to pass it now. This was my first review, and I hope you found my comments and suggestions useful.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've added a little source data to the references, and split the one note in the article into a separate Notes section. The article meets all the GA criteria, as far as I can tell, and I'm going to pass it now. This was my first review, and I hope you found my comments and suggestions useful.
- I responded after each point that I thought needed further explanation, but overall, it's looking really good.