Talk:Casa de Ferro

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hey there! Hope you're having a great day. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia with your article. I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Have a fantastic day for you and your family!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 21:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Casa de Ferro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Markhole - just a couple of minor things while I do a copyright check and then we should be all set! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 - that's brilliant, thank you! Here below is some feedback on your comments:

- I have nothing to object with regards to the changes you have made, which all look reasonable to me.

- I have rearranged the pictures in the article, reduced their size and eliminated one image which was redundant.

- Unfortunately I am not able to answer your question on the changes possibly undergone by the building over time, as none of my sources provide any information on that; moreover, I could not find any historic photographs of the house to compare with modern ones. —Markhole (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good - if the building hasn't changed, we can't find something that isn't there, and if reliable sources don't mention anything, nothing more we can do. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and nice work! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 - thank you, and keep up the good work! —Markhole (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual practice, I've gone through and made changes myself, to save us both time - let me know if there are any you do not support. Overall, solid prose. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some of the sources are a little old, though it is fun to see 19th century sources used directly. For the information they're used to cite, I don't see any actual problems. A lot of reliable journals and books that I can't find issue with. Pass. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	A few questionable words were taken out in the prose review, no other issues, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None found by manual check - Earwig not helpful here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Has the building ever been modified or expanded since its erection? Question addressed, pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no issues of overdetail found.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	A few non-neutral words/phrases were taken out in prose review, other than that, no issues. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This is a very new article which has only been substantially edited by the nominator. In general, I think a variety of contributors help bring balance and variety to an article, which eventually will settle into a stable version. However, this is no reason to keep the article from GA if all the other criteria are met. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I would recommend swapping the horizontally-oriented facade picture with the infobox picture. I would also suggest making some of the images a little smaller and changing their placement (such as putting the Crozon image higher) to avoid any sandwiching issues. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Issue addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.