Talk:Marmion Tower/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 13:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I will be taking on the review of the article for GA criteria, expect a full review by tomorrow but at least a preliminary review today. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks - changes made noted below. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I will be using the above table to complete the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have completed my initial review of the article, thanks for your work on the article it was an interesting, if short, read. I didn't come across any major issues and will due a second review of the article pending your changes. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The article has less than 3K of prose. Are you sure it meets the "broad in coverage" part of the criteria? For example, A History of the County of York North Riding: Volume 1 doesn't appear to have been used, which has some information not in the article eg: "On the west [of the first floor room] is a wide two-light window with a square head and large stops to its label, much weathered but apparently meant for dogs". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd gone through several sources myself and hadn't found anything of use, I can take a look at your source and update my review if necessary. Actually, the article has cited the source you mention, but I'll give it another look through anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha - the problem there is that BHO is not the source itself, which is the journal its republishing. Anyone could (in theory) get a British Library pass and look at the original printed versions of the sources, just that website makes verification and research far easier. The citation in the article should be changed to match - a while ago BHO had "Wikipedia" in its dropdown list of citation formats, but that's gone so you'll have to do it by hand :-( (see footnote #4 in Oxford Street for an example) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see, the original source is Victoria County History, London, 1914. I'll update the reference in that case, cheers for noticing that. I believe I have updated the reference correctly, pending your satisfaction, . Mr rnddude (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other sources on this particular tower, but happy to be pointed in their direction if anyone can find them... NB: I've tried the usual, such as the JSTOR academic journal site, a major university library, Google books, archive sites etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "'Parishes: West Tanfield', in A History of the County of York North Riding: Volume 1, ed. William Page (London, 1914), pp. 384-389. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/yorks/north/vol1/pp384-389 [accessed 14 July 2016]."
 * The above are the instructions for citing the source on the website, BHO, I can understand undoing the change in publisher, but, the title is incorrect as it stands. The article Parishes: West Tanfield was published in A History of the County of York North Riding Volume 1. It's not a standalone publishing, it's a bit like separating Vopiscus' works from the Historia Augusta, even though Vopiscus is likely fictional, his works were written in the Historia Augusta and not separate to it.
 * , I forgot to sign so you wouldn't have been pinged. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The citation style in the template asks for the title of the page in question - which is correctly cited, as per the title of the web page at the top. Any publisher can ask us to cite in a particular style, but we don't have to adopt their preference; indeed, we shouldn't unless it matches with the style on the article page concerned. Ideally cite web would allow for original publisher, alternate titles etc., but it doesn't appear to do so. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was think more along the lines of the journal citation (title of the work and title of the journal), if cite-web doesn't allow for this, then, I don't think there's anything left to do about it. My issues have been addressed. I'll be passing the article. Thanks for your work on the article, I think I said it before but an interesting if short read. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers - and thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)