Talk:Swakeleys House/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. 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.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars.

6. 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.

7. 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)