Talk:Rideau Cottage/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Saskoiler (talk · contribs) 05:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article for good article (GA) standards. More to come as I work through the criteria.
Saskoiler (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Overall, the prose is clear and concise.
I have several questions. See below: "Prose/Clarity". |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead section... well-written and picks out highlights.
Layout... good. Words to watch... one instance of "currently". See below: "Manual of Style" Fiction... n/a. Embedded lists... n/a. (In the future, one might build the "residents of Rideau Cottage" using an embedded list, like the "Children" example at MOS:EMBED.) |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | "References" section exists, containing ten sources. |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Of the ten citations, I checked the eight which are linked directly to content. They are all reliable sources: books, official government documents, mainstream media. I cross-referenced each of the facts against the citations, and all are accurately supported.
I have two minor questions. See below: "Citations" |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | There appears to be no original research. |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | There appears to be no problems with copyright or plagiarism. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The primary aspects of this topic (construction; historical residents; architectural detail) are addressed.
I have a few questions about linked information which would be helpful for readers to understand the context of articles related to this one. See below: "Categories, Templates, See Also" |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article has laser focus. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article presents the topic in a neutral point of view. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | I don't see any evidence of stability problems. |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | There is one very good image, and it is in the public domain (Canadian copyright expired). |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Image is relevant to the topic and has a suitable caption is used (though I would be inclined to eliminate the word "pictured"). |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | After reviewing the updates made in response to the issues below, I am satisfied that the GA criteria are met. Pass |
Overall Review Comments
This is a short article, but I liked it. It is crisply written. The citations provide excellent coverage of the topic. I learned something from this article. Thank you for working on and nominating it.
There are only a handful of fairly minor items to resolve, listed in four sections (A, B, C, D) following this statement. Please add comments below to let me know they are addressed (or help me understand why it is the way it is). Once this is done, I will pass this GA review. I'm placing the review on hold for these fixes to be made. Thanks. Saskoiler (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
A: Prose/Clarity
- Why does the lead have "two-level 22-room", but the Design section uses "two-storey, 22 room"? Is the distinction between "level" and "storey" intentional? If not, I recommend picking one and using consistently.
- Although the lead mentions both "Rideau Hall" and "persons associated with the Governor General of Canada", the connection between the two could be strengthened in this article. As it reads currently, Rideau Cottage is home to the secretary of the Governor General, and it just happens to be located on the grounds of some other building (Rideau Hall).
- Do we need "various" in the "...inhabited by various persons associated..."?
- Cited sources (like the Don Butler article) specify that "every" secretary of the Governor General has lived at Rideau Cottage, but I don't get this from the article prose. When I first read the article, the impression I had was that perhaps a few of the first secretaries resided there, but then it was designated for other uses until Barbara Uteck lived there decades later. I recommend that this be clarified.
B: Manual of Style
- In the lead, "currently" could use the "as of" template, as per MOS:RELTIME, WP:ASOF.
C: Categories, Templates, See Also
- I'm not well-versed in this area, but I think this article should be listed on Category:Buildings and structures on the National Historic Sites of Canada register. Yes?
- It seems odd that Template:Official Government residences in North America and the Caribbean is included on this article, but Template:Ca-residence is not. Am I missing something?
- I'm confused as to why 7 Rideau Gate is included as a "See Also" link. It doesn't seem to have a particularly strong connection to Rideau Cottage, any more than other buildings located nearby. (Hmm.. on later reflection, is the connection established by the "Fascinating Canada..." reference? If so, I think this connection could be better established in the prose rather than by a "see also" link.
D: Citations
- The 6th citation (Lord Minto, a Memoir) is a book without a page number listed. Can one be provided? If so, great. If not, just let me know.
- The 7th citation ("Mrs. Lionel Massey...") is an unlinked newspaper reference, which appears to have been copied over from the Lilias Massey article. Would it make sense to replace it with this link?
Future Suggestions (It is NOT necessary to address these for GA review. They are just some ideas for future improvements I had while reading.)
- The scope and layout are fine for GA as is, but I would consider adding the following in the future:
- Separation of construction/remodel details from architectural features into two sections, then growing each.
- Interior details.
- Architectural comparison to other Ottawa buildings of similar era?
- Although the image criteria for GA passes as is, I would consider adding the following:
- a modern (full-color) image of the exterior. For example, many other PM residences have color photographs in Wikipedia, as shown here: List of Prime Ministers of Canada by residence .
- Images which offer a closeup view of some of the architectural details described in the article: sash windows, decorative shutters, pedimented porch, etc.
- a map of the Rideau Hall grounds (or perhaps a broader area), to show the relation of Rideau Cottage, Rideau Hall, and other buildings. (The Google Earth graphic in this citation is an example)
- Saskoiler I've made these changes; LMK if I missed something. I also notice that, since I originally wrote the article, it's been committee-edited resulting in some choppy sentences. I've tried to fix those where I found them. LavaBaron (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)