Talk:History of Brasenose College, Oxford/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Foundation and early history -
  • untitled subsection -

• The second paragraph is discussing both Stamford and Oxford. I suspect that The Brasenose knocker was taken with them as a symbol of continuity, and .... is referring to Stamford, but the previous sentence seems to be about Oxford. It needs to be clarified where the knocker was taken.

Pyrotec (talk)‎ 20:59, 28 September 2012(UTC)

• • Foundation -

• A minor point, but in the first paragraph there are inconsistent date formats, i.e. .... 1 June 1509 that the foundation stone for Staircase I was laid.[9] It was not until January 15, 1512....; and there are two short sentences starting: It was on.....
• It's unclear in the final paragraph what Entrants to the college would have been only 11 or 12, with an intake ... is intended to say. I assumed that it was saying 11 or 12 years old, but it could be taken to mean 11 or 12 entrants.

• Seventeenth century -

• Looks OK.

• Eighteenth century -

• Looks OK.

• Nineteenth century -

....stopping at this point, to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Regency period -

• Looks OK.

• • Victorian period -

• The first sentence in the first paragraph is hanging, His successor in 1842 was Richard ..., presumably this was Ashurst Turner Gilbert's successor?
• The fourth paragraph talks about a Royal Commission of 1851 without a wikilink or explanation. Wikipedia does have an article on the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 but it does not seems to have any relevance here.
• The following paragraph refers to a second Royal Commission without providing any explanation, or dates.

• First half of the twentieth century -
  • unnamed first subsection & Inter-war period -

• These two subsections look OK.

• • Second World War -

• I suspect that the second sentence Once again, union was Lincoln was discussed: ... should read with instead of was? But what is Lincoln, as the rest of the sentence talks about Brasenose and Christ Church (Note: presumably Lincoln college, as that name appears in the Victorian period subsection)?

• Second half of the twentieth century & Twenty-first century -

....stopping at this point, to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• These two sections look OK.

• WP:Lead -

• Looks OK.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. A few minor points need to be addressed, but I would anticipate awarding GA-status quite soon. Pyrotec (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Should be all done now; we don't have articles on the Royal Commissions so I've done my best to explain as concisely as possible. It is a little messy now, but understandable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of 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 where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

A well referenced and well illustrated article that has the potential of becoming a candidate at WP:FAC. I'm delighted to be award this article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)