Talk:Manor Hall, Bristol/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bris2015 (talk · contribs) 20:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Review

I've been asked to recheck this against the original comments raised in GA1. Comments are inline with the review criteria:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

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

   I am of the opinion the original reviewer was correct and the lead needs further work given the length of the article.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   There are still a number of assertions in the body of the article than really need attributing to a source. For example "The new manor house was built in the early 18th century and extensively altered and extended in the mid-18th and 19th centuries."

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   I agree with the original reviewer that the section on 'The Manor Hall Association' reads as though it's advertising. This needs addressing so it is more neutral in its structure.

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 if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The changes are minimal given all of the original reviewers recommendations have been taken into account. Placing on hold for seven days.

Reassessment

I'm happy this article now meets the GA criteria. There are a few references still missing but this in its own right isn't a blocker to GA status and the addition of some citation needed tags is good to see. The Manor Hall Association section is much more objective now; however, it might be worth considering reducing it further, but that said in its current form I believe it meets the GA criteria. The lead is much better for an article of this length and includes relevant references.

I have removed some broken references, which if possible should be replaced.

For completely I include the GA review below:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

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 if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: