Talk:Old House of Keys

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Old House of Keys/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 20:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all have you researched this article in google books? Will post further comments tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've sifted through a fair bit of it. There hasn't been much of use that I have found. I can't discount the possibility of there still being stuff, but I doubt there is too much of any detail. I was on the island the past few days, and had a look around there and didn't find too much extra either. I'll probably replace the main image with one of my own in the next couple of days, I just need to process the images. Harrias ^talk 23:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hokay, I'll wait a few days until you've done this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Harrias ^talk 16:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• "After criticism from a Royal Commission" -do we know which?

• It was the "Royal Commission on the Isle of Man" of 1791 and 1792, though I've found no single source that gives all of that information, and it's a little OR-ish to use here. It also seems to have been referred to as the "Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Isle of Man in 1792", but again, that is pretty OR-ish. Harrias ^talk 18:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• "In 2000, Manx National Heritage acquired the building and began restoring the house to its appearance in 1866. " What? They went back 134 years?

• I've added an explanation of the year into the "Later use" section. Harrias ^talk 18:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded to clear than one up!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Looks satisfactory now. Seems to have what is required for a good article. If you could find anything extra in google books that of course would be a bonus.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)