Talk:Briarcliff Lodge/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 05:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman 05:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks again.-- ɱ    (talk)  05:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:
 * The File:Briarcliff Lodge Fire.jpg image doesn't pass fair use in my mind. There's plenty of free images in the article already, so I'm not seeing the significance of keeping it.
 * Here are the non-free content criteria: WP:NFCCP. Which specific point do you think this image fails?-- ɱ    (talk)  04:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Point 8 primarily. I don't see how the pic provides an extra understanding of the topic that the other images fail to do. Wizardman  02:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's understandable, but here's my reasoning behind it being essential. First of all, there are no free images (in existence, not just in this article) of the building from the latter half of its existence, and also none in color. Thus the image helps readers tell not only what colors the building has, but also provides an indication that the building has existed in recent times, it's not just some mere archaic or historical subject of interest. As well, there are no free photographs that show anything of the fate/current status of the building; this image is a good example of that. Finally, the public and even most village residents had little concept of what or where the Lodge was, often simply associating the site with the school King's College, and most are unfamiliar with the current status of the site and when the building was demolished and how. The image helps with all of that.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  04:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The references in the lead don't seem necessary since that info is ref'd in the body.
 * You're right, but I don't mention the 'first hotel' bit later, and that's contentious enough to require an inline citation. Removed the rest.-- ɱ    (talk)  04:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Walter William Law had it built on his estate, the Law family owned it until 1937. " structure isn't good here. Either replace the comma with a semicolon or add an and after the comma. Ideally reword this instead to make it read better.
 * Missed a word. OK now?-- ɱ    (talk)  04:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure how it would be fixed, but parts of the history section (para three namely) feel like just a slew of facts rather than a naturally flowing article. See if you can do a bit of rewording to make everything flow better (perhaps making amenities its own paragraph rather than strewn throughout the first couple?)
 * Given that the main ref used (the images of america book) is 128 pages, the page numbers should really be noted in the inline citations.
 * That would be nice, but I don't have access to the book anymore; I may be able to in three or four weeks, and will likely add them then. It's not a GA requirement though.-- ɱ    (talk)  04:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref #26 (Bosak) should have an ISBN.
 * I have looked very thoroughly and found nothing. The actual book (every copy I've encountered) has neither an ISBN or LCCN; many older books won't. Briarcliff's 1952 history doesn't even have a copyright notice!-- ɱ    (talk)  04:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll put the article on hold while the issues are fixed. Once they are, I'll give this another read-through. Wizardman 03:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything looks mostly ok now, awaiting response to my image note above. I'll get a second opinion on the page number issue, since to me that feels like something that would be needed for GA. Wizardman  02:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In several GA reviews, I've had quite a few people tell me it wasn't a valid obstacle, even though it is still ideal, and they were happy to continue the reviews, perhaps also satisfied with my assurance that the page numbers will later be filled out. After all, I plan to get all eighteen Briarcliff articles all the way to FA.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  04:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I asked a couple users about the page number issue, and they actually agree with you, so I won't pursue the matter for GA. Should you go to FAC though they will want that, and I'm still not convinced the fair use image would fly there, though I don't mind it based on what you've said now. As a result, I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman  03:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, both will still remain issues, however significant. As mentioned earlier, the page numbers will be added; I'll even look into freeing a color image of the lodge, though it'll be rather tough. Thanks for your review!-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  04:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)