Talk:Whitefriars, Bristol/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
This is quite a compact article, so it should not take long to review. At this stage I will be mostly concentrating on "problems", if any; and I've leaving the WP:Lead until last. So, if a section is OK, I may not comment on it here (but there will be an overall summary at the end). Pyrotec (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * History -
 * Ref 2 is a chapter from a book that just happens to be online (its part of the Victoria County History). It has an author, a book title, a chapter title, and page numbers; which are not quoted in the citation. I suggest that the cite book or cite template is used, together with the (valid) url link.
 * OK, I have fixed that. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Post-dissolution -
 * I'm a bit uncertain as to what is being said here. "Site" appears to have two different meanings. I think in the first use "site" refers to that occupied by the Friary; and in the second use "site" refers to that occupied by the Great House.
 * I also know that the Colston Hall had a bit of a make over. Is the new bit still on the original Friary site, or has the "boundary" been shifted (perhaps, you don't know, but this should be clarified)?
 * The friary and gardens occupied a large area, unfortunately I don't have the exact size. I hope I have clarified by my edits and additions. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:Lead -
 * As always, this is both an introduction to, and a summary of, the main article. Its got the Great House, which has gone and been replaced, but not the Lodge which is still there as a museum; and no mention of the "transference" of the name to a modern nearby building.
 * I have expanded the lead. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Once these, minor, points have been addressed, I'll be happy to award GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review and your useful comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this GA-status. Congratulations on producing another "Bristol GA". Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)