Talk:St. John's Orphanage/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' I am Reviewing this article for possible WP:GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 00:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Re: the lead: I was going through MOS:LEAD and was struck by the section WP:LEADLENGTH. Do you think that the length of the lead and its detail should be trimmed?  I am thinking that it has little too much detail, but let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy to discuss this. Before I do any changes, what details do you think could be trimmed or deleted? Just so I know what areas can be improved and altered. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to not be clearer about this but I am thinking that the lead section simply gives away too many of the details. It's supposed to be a summary, an overview of the subject, that gives the reader a general understanding of what the article's about.
 * The 1st and 2nd paragraphs especially - should an introduction include the exact # of hectares or that the residents woke up at 6am or what the daily schedule generally was for the children? Those are details, and not really a summary.  Since I was having trouble explaining myself, I was looking at some Featured articles about places for examples - maybe your could take a look at Acra (fortress), Belton House, Old Pine Church, or any of the other WP:FAs at Featured articles.  If that's not any clearer then I'll think some more on it - please let me know.  Shearonink (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you for the excellent response. I have trimmed the lead by removing the details you have mentioned. I have also combined the second and third paragraphs together. I'm sure there are other parts of the lead that may need looking at, but the specific details you have mentioned are now dealt with. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you for the excellent response. I have trimmed the lead by removing the details you have mentioned. I have also combined the second and third paragraphs together. I'm sure there are other parts of the lead that may need looking at, but the specific details you have mentioned are now dealt with. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * The referencing issues mentioned below have been taken care of. Shearonink (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * The Council Plan reference has gone dead. Please adjust the  refs. Shearonink (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dead link has now been replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burklemore1 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Considering the implicit tug-of-war between the local council and the owner, I think the article does an admirable job of laying out the facts dispassionately - well-done. Shearonink (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Nicely-done with the photography. Shearonink (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The old photos and the new ones tell the story of the building's decline very well. Shearonink (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It does indeed - infact, quite a sad story. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Nicely-done with the photography. Shearonink (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The old photos and the new ones tell the story of the building's decline very well. Shearonink (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It does indeed - infact, quite a sad story. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Doing some more readthroughs. The last issue I am seeing at this time is the length & detail in the lead. Shearonink (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking care of the leads trimming - I wasn't sure if I was explaining myself very well about it. Shearonink (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome - you explained it rather well in my opinion. Enough for me to know what needs addressing to say the least. And thank you for reviewing the article! Burklemore1 (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)