Talk:Linwood House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 09:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

These are my comments:

• "Architecturally, it was a rare example of a late" - I would change the underlined to "Linwood House"  Fixed
• "which gave it historical importance." - the city gave it historical importance? If yes, then I don't understand it.  Fixed
• "Its association with Joseph Brittan" - I would replace the underlined with eg "The building's" for clarity.  Fixed
• "having caused such a scandal was responded to by emigrating, which the newly-weds did a month after the ceremony.[6]" - can you reword this as confusing?  Fixed
• "mid 1852" - add hyphen.  Fixed
• "rural land some 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) east of Cathedral Square.[9]" - perhaps a rural land? And "some" sounds too colloquial, how about "about"?  Fixed
• "and it is believed that he also designed Englefield Lodge.[10]" - too weasily, how about: he may have also designed...  Fixed
• The section "History and ownership" contains much information unrelated to the actual building. C I'll get onto that. Y See discussion below.
• "their then two children remained in Wellington." - I think this word is redundant.  Fixed
• " (the former dwelling of John Anderson to Linwood House.[45]" - there is no closing bracket  Fixed
• "(later known as Knox Church.[48]" - ditto  Fixed
• "In ca 1995," - avoid abbreviations; write for example "about"  Fixed
• As I said, the article is not focused and has a lot of biographical content unrelated to the building. The most problematic section is "Joseph Brittan (1857–1867)". C Y See discussion below.
• Link Anglican Church in the last section  Fixed
• Are restorations considered? Not sure The house has been demolished in its entirety (check the photo). There's nothing to restore.
• In ref 61, what does the "B"s in "B8-B9" mean? Nutshell I'll explain that reference on the article's talk page.

--Kürbis (✔) 17:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review so far. That's greatly appreciated. I'll work through the remaining issue (focus). Schwede66 20:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have trimmed the section on Joseph Brittan and I agree that this was too broad / unfocussed. I haven't trimmed any of the other sections. Yes, there is biographical information contained in the History and ownership section, but in my opinion, this is relevant to the social history of the house. I have drafted the article so that the reader gets an impression of how the status of the house changed over time, from the 'movers and shakers' living there, followed by middle-class occupants and use as a school, to the conversion to flats. In my opinion, the social history of a building can be as important as its architectural history. Or in other words, there is much more to a building than just bricks and mortar. It also matters who lives there, and how that fits into society. If in your opinion, the article isn't focussed enough, can you please point to specific examples, so that I can see where you are coming from? Schwede66 19:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)