Talk:Brougham Castle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 07:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

Articles passes quick-fail assessment. Main review to follow. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 07:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary concerns

• The article is generally very well written; however I have taken the liberty to alter a few sentences to improve the flow of the text. These changes are all structural and do not affect the meaning of the material, but include removing sentence fragments, and integrating clauses. If there are problems or concerns with these changes, please revert of contact me for discussion.
• The only other problem with the article concerns overlinking. I have fixed the problems per WP:OVERLINK. Generally, names/terms should only be linked once in an article. Also, well known terms/names such as keep or manor do not need to be wikilinked (though I have left them where they specifically refer to a place).✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• I have rephrased a couple of expressions which contain weasal words or which were not in keeping with the sombre and academic tone successfully established in the article. One such example is: "It was under the youngest, Thomas Tufton, 6th Earl of Thanet, that the fortunes of Brougham Castle took a turn for the worse" which I reworked as "It was under the youngest, Thomas Tufton, 6th Earl of Thanet, that Brougham Castle suffered particular neglect". Again, I have not made alterations where the meaning of the sentence would be substantially changed. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• The title "Picturesque ruin" borders on weasaling (picturesque according to whom?), so I have replaced it with "Castle ruin", however another alternative would be fine. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• Final change to the references layout to conform to the way footnotes and notes are generally set out. However, if the originals were in keeping with how castle pages are styles, the changes can be reverted. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 11:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Main review

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Very well written. Some minor problems with sentence fragments were encountered, but that is to be expected in such a content-laden article. Problems encountered with fixed.

   b (MoS):

   • Conforms to manual of style. Slight problem with unnecessary linking, but only a minor concern which was easily rectified.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Well referenced.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Citations are to third party publications.

   c (OR):

   • No evidence of OR.

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.

   b (focused):

   • Remains focused. No digressions. Article remains admirably focused on the subject matter (the castle).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   • No issues concerning POV evident.

5. It is stable:

   • No edit wars etc.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • Images are properly tagged and justified.

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Images are accompanied by contextual captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: PASS ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 11:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)