Talk:Woodspring Priory/GA1

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Jaguar in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply


Will have this one to you within 24 hours. At a first glance, the article looks comprehensive and well-written so the review shouldn't be long. Jaguar 19:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  


Initial comments

edit

Lead

edit
  • The lead summarises the article well and meets the GA criteria and WP:LEAD. I would have suggested to change the opening sentence so that it reads out where Woodspring Priory is located, for example Woodspring Priory (originally Worsprynge or Worspring) is a former Augustinian priory situated in North Somerset or something similar to that. But the lead is fine.

History

edit
  • Some parts of this section feel too trivial, however it won't affect the GAN. I noticed one for example "Major and Mrs Hill continued to own the priory until 1928" - how about something like "The Major and his wife"?
  • However the history section is informative, in depth and mostly well-written so this meets the GA criteria.

References

edit

Close - promoted

edit

Despite some sentences in the article feeling trivial and a couple of references that lead to nowhere - I think that this article already meets the GA criteria. It is broad in coverage, mostly well-written and well referenced. Because the concerns I have listed aren't really that important I feel it won't be necessary to put this on hold, so I'll promote this one! Well done on another Somerset GA! Jaguar 11:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply