Talk:Bass Maltings, Sleaford/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 10:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time 

Tick box
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

 * Pass
 * Appropriate reference section.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Images are OK.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stable.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Prose is clear and readable, conveying information simply and accurately.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * MoS requirements are met, though I query the need to sub-section the two main sections, particularly the second section. Per WP:Layout: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose". Though this a minor quibble, and is open to debate.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Cites and sources check out.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Informative and detailed without being excessive or boring.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Query


 * Fail

General comments

 * Pass. This is a well written and informative piece on an interesting group of buildings. It's nice to do a review on a discrete and simple subject which is well written and researched as it makes the task so easy!  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)