Talk:Swakeleys House/GA1

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this article. I enjoyed it. Please fix consumption as a disamb. link. No. invalid external links.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The heading "Ownership" is a bit confusing since you do trace the ownership of the former house in the prior section. Can you think of a better heading, such as "Subsequent ownership"?
 * "formed Swakeleys House Ltd and purchased"->"formed Swakeleys House Ltd to purchase" - did not the new corporation purchase the house?
 * "25 year lease"->"25-year lease"
 * These have been changed as you have suggested.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Do you need to repeat the busts of Lord Essex and Lord Fairfax both in the prose and in the quote?
 * Was there any particular inspiration for the design of the house? Did it represent any design innovation, other than preserving the prior dining room paneling?
 * Was Swakeleys House Ltd a for-profit or a non-profit venture? Is the current owner a for-profit or a non-profit entity?
 * Are the current garden/grounds maintained in their historic manner? (Or did they pave a lot of it for office parking?)
 * I thought that mentioning the busts could serve as something of a translation. Would you prefer that the mention in the prose is removed? The sources I have read do not mention any design inspiration for the house, other than it was built to the design Sir Edmund Wright approved of. Swakeleys House Ltd was not-for-profit though little is known of the new owners. There isn't even any record of their name.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Thank you for contributing the photos. It would be helpful if the captions described the view, for example "driveway approaching Swakeleys House from the south."
 * I've changed the caption in the way you have suggested.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed the caption in the way you have suggested.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly continue to polish the article because it has FAC potential. Currently, it meets the GA criteria. Congratulations! Racepacket (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)