Talk:Bradenstoke Priory/GA1

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


 * Starting GAreview.Pyrotec (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Initial review
My first thoughts were that this article was a bit "thin", so I started to look at some sources that I have. I found Bradenstoke Priory. Then I checked the article Bradenstoke Abbey and I checked the references. Reference 1, which is clearly authoritative, is clearly labelled in the article as Bradenstoke Priory; yet the article is named Bradenstoke Abbey and it talks about the Abbey. Clearly, if you can't get the name of the site correct and if you can't produce references to support the existence of Bradenstoke Abbey, the article will fail under WP:verify. I suggest that in the first instance you read the article and the references and decide what it is called.Pyrotec (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, rather a gaffe; however, I'll go with the title given by the historians, although locally it is still referred to as an Abbey. I've moved the article & updated the text. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Rodhull andemu  19:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great thanks for the quick response. The article still worries me, its too "thin" and will not get through GA as it is; see for instance Netley Abbey, which I did the GA back in September, or Paulinus of York. Its not the length (or lack of), its the fact that there is published information that is not used in the article. A History of the County of Wiltshire. 3. 1956. pp. 275-288, which is cited in the article has much much more than is given in the article. I'm not suggest that you put it in wholesale since that would lead to questions of copyvio, but that fact that the information is out there means that the article will be poorly assessed for scope (Broad in coverage) under WP:WIAGA. Its on hold for up to a week at present, but I will review it further.Pyrotec (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed the above comment at the time, since for some reason the article has fallen off my watchlist. I agree that there is more that could go in, but it's a question of what might be relevant to a broad reader without going into minute detail. I'll follow this up ASAP. -- Rodhull andemu  19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work so far, but I have found a lot in interesting information that would improve the article in terms of breadth of coverage; accordingly, I am withdrawing the GA nomination until these issues can be addressed. -- Rodhull andemu  23:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I can respect that. I think I have to "fail" it, in order to close the WP:GAN down. Have fun.Pyrotec (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)