Talk:Tyntesfield/GA1

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 01:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There are enough citation needed, dead links and better source tags that it makes sense to wait and see the response to my edits here, with a few intermittent edits that I agree with by another user, before proceeding now with the thorough analysis of the text to sources and written text. You may want to consider the comments about World War II summary in the lead and the badger section.--05:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's two more topics I'd like to bring up:
 * 1) Should the history and owners sections be merged? It seems like it would flow a bit better if it they were merged.
 * 2) There's some detail that I generally put in notes (i.e., interesting but does not necessarily further the subject's story.) One example is the "The initial conservation work focused around..." bullets. It would seem that could be rolled up into a summary and the number of feet / miles comments put in a note. Another potential are the details in the National Trust purchase section. It would seem that potential buyer info, etc. would be better in notes.--05:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I updated the 1 b. "section" information re: proposal to merge history and owners sections.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 06:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Summary of issues
 * Better source - Exeter Memories, I see is ✅
 * Better source - thepeerage.com, I see is ✅
 * Better source - blogs ✅
 * Citation needed tags ✅
 * Deadlinks ✅
 * Comments about joining history and owners - added to article talk page, Talk:Tyntesfield
 * Comments about paring down / putting some of the detail info in notes - added to the article talk page
 * Comments about the badger section ✅ / removed, unless someone finds a reliable source
 * See Talk:Tyntesfield/Archives/2014 regarding items found in a review of 2 sources, which seems to indicate the need for a thorough review of all source content to article content.

I hope that there is interest in hanging in through the changes. The article has come a long way and it's got great bones, just needs some work on a few outstanding source issues and rephrasing. Any additional thoughts about the veracity of my statements or things I may have missed are welcome!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 20:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, need to make updates consistently throughout the review box, too.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 20:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * fixed parameter on an image, marked it done in the review box.-- CaroleHenson   ( talk ) 21:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The close paraphrasing issues have been resolved in the web pages. There are issues with content to pdf sources. Only able to verify one book, and that required changes to content + page numbers. I stepped in to help move the review of the webpages, but am going to go back to my original statement of January 21 that there needs to be a thorough source to content validation. Please let me know when that's been done and I'll step back in.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you say exactly what you mean by "a thorough source to content validation"?&mdash; Rod talk 21:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The web sites are good to go now, and it's likely that now all that can be done regarding the books has been done. I think all that remains now is the pdfs. I was surprised by the disconnect between what attributed content and the sources, as was mentioned on the talk page. Of five or six sentences first checked from Terry and Wright all of the sentences had an issue. So, I think it would be wise to go through and double-check the attribution of the pdf files. Once that is done, we should be good to go.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 00:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've now been through Wright & Steven (Terry is 1st name) & moved them to the bibliography & used sfn to show page numbers. There were a few items not completely supported by those sources for which I've now added other citations.&mdash; Rod talk 15:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, great! I'll do some minor spot-checking!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 15:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Pass. I'm not sure why so many pdf citations went away... the only point was to ensure that the sources had the cited content... So, we might have had a misunderstanding. Anyway, the article looks really good!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 16:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)