Talk:St Catherine's Court/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 19:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am Reviewing this artist for possible WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 11 February 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:
 * See below. There are some grammatical issues to be taken care of. Shearonink (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything's been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * References all check out and conform with each other. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 13 February 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:
 * 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:
 * Ran Checklinks and the references are all clean as a whistle - no problems. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Checklinks didn't catch Ref #9 which has gone dead. Please adjust/correct as necessary. Shearonink (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've checked & revised.&mdash; Rod talk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that my previous concerns have been addressed but there is now an additional issue - please see "One last thing" section. Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran the copyvio tool - no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Lays out the facts, conveys the building's timeline well. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Very stable, no edit wars found. Shearonink (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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, image permissions are all clear. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Please see "One last thing" below. Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Congrats, it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Please see "One last thing" below. Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Congrats, it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Congrats, it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Grammar, etc

 * In lead section
 * It is a Grade I ...should be... Wikilinked. The first incidence of Grade II* and Grade III in the article should also be Wikilinked.
 * "listed" was wikilinked to Listed building but I have changed it so the whole of "Grade I listed" is wikilinked. If I wikilink the others they would all point to the same article & therefore would be a case of overlinking.&mdash; Rod talk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph uses the word it a total of 6 times, This paragraph should be recrafted - the overuse of "it" is jarring to the reader.
 * I have changed several of them to "the manor", "the property" or "the property".&mdash; Rod talk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * After spending £3 million on refurbishments, They undertook renovation ...should be... After spending £3 million on refurbishments,[9] they undertook renovation
 * Capitalisation changed
 * A couple other things with this sentence:
 * I think it is important to mention why Seymour & Flynn bought furniture from Littlecote House - there was very little furniture actually in the house itself.
 * the sentence is a little unclear. It almost implies that Seymour/Flynn brought in furniture from another house they owned or something but they bought certain pieces from Sir Seton Wills.
 * I've made various tweaks to this to try to explain.&mdash; Rod talk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * what is the difference here between "refurbishments" and "renovation"
 * My understanding is that refurbishment is about decorative aspects, whereas renovation includes structural work.&mdash; Rod talk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The north front, which is the oldest part of the house is Elizabethan but incorporates parts of the earlier priory grange.[1] It has sloping gables to reduce the load on the walls beneath them. ...should be... The first sentence is a fragment and confusingly constructed. I am not sure if a comma was intended instead of the period but in any case, there needs to be some adjustment of the wording & punctuation here.Shearonink (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at rephrasing these sentances - is that any better?&mdash; Rod talk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Much better - thanks for all your adjustments. Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

One last thing
Per a recent RFC on the issue, the Daily Mail is now not generally accepted as a reliable source. The 2 references that use this newspaper/media publication as their source will have to be adjusted to use something else. Pending these corrections, I will be able to finish up this Review within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in revisiting that RFC so I have replaced them with articles from The Telegraph. I can look for further sources if needed.&mdash; Rod talk 17:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)