Talk:Grade I listed buildings in Somerset/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it has taken a few days to get to this point. I've scaned through the article and it appears to be at GA-level. I will now go through the article in more depth, section by section, but leaving the WP:lead until last.

However, I would suggest at this point that the first paragraph of the lead, i.e. "The Grade I listed buildings in Somerset, England, demonstrate the history and diversity of its architecture. The ceremonial county of Somerset consists of a non-metropolitan county and two unitary authorities. The districts of Somerset are West Somerset, South Somerset, Taunton Deane, Mendip and Sedgemoor. The two administratively independent unitary authorities, which were established on 1 April 1996 following the break up of the county of Avon, are North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset. These unitary authorities include areas that were once part of Somerset before the creation of Avon in 1974.[1]", is slightly reworked. Having taken the trouble to state that "The ceremonial county of Somerset consists of a non-metropolitan county and two unitary authorities" there is detailed disussion of districts and then two unitary authories. It was not obvious what districts were: discussing the two unitary authories first, which is the order that they were introduced, and then the districts last might provide a hint that the districts are something to do with the non-metropolitan county (its not explained at all).

I've had a go at rewording this to explain 1 ceremonial county contains 1 non-met county (5 districts) + 2 UAs.— Rod ^talk 20:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I may come back to the lead again, but that first paragraph is confusing as an introduction, so it needs some attention. Pyrotec (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Bath and North East Somerset -

• It is not clear what "it" at the start of the second sentence (1st para) is refering to, is "it" green belt or BANES?

• It = BANES revised— Rod ^talk 20:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Response Thanks for spotting the problems with my poor prose & providing the review. Can I just query one of your changes: you added a full stop & started a new sentence "In the Mendip" which does read right. Mendip is a district council so in this case "In the Mendip district" would work but otherwise In Mendip would probably be better without "the" - although we do talk about "The Mendip Hills" (but not in this case). Are you happy for me to change it?— Rod ^talk 20:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, go ahead. Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Done— Rod ^talk 21:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Mendip -

• Ref 30 is a 67 page PDF report; the page or pages numbers should be given in the citation (used twice).

Done— Rod ^talk 21:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, wide-ranging, well-referenced, well illustrated overview of the Grade I listed buildings in Somerset.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well-referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well-referenced.

   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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated and the titles manage to cram in extra details on some sites.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. An outstanding example of a GA. Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.— Rod ^talk 21:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)