Talk:Vicars' Close, Wells/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 14:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Beginning review, might take a few days, will alert nominator when I finish.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

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

   No copyvio issues. Spelling seems to be okay, I think the issue is the difference between American and British English (e.g. sherd, rather than shard). The second paragraph in the origins section is confusing: it talks about pottery sherds being discovered, and then jumps to "these priests". The second sentence in the Vicar's Chapel is also confusing, and the last sentence in the first paragraph is a run-on, as is the first sentence of the next paragraph. The residences section needs the most work. First, in two places it is mentioned "originally" (22 houses and 20 houses, 42 houses), suggesting that this has changed, but no changes about the # of residences are ever discussed. The 8th sentence of that first paragraph is confusing, as is the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph. The 3rd and 4th sentences are also unclear. In the 3rd paragraph, the second sentence is a run-on.

• Sherd was a typo. I have attempted to reorganise the history section to make it flow more logically and I'm having problems identifying the run on sentences. I have tried to explain the alg=ignment of the close in the Vicars Chapel section. I am confused by your comments about the residences. The number of houses changed later and the article does say "larger households would have been required and as a result some of the houses were combined into larger dwellings" - therefore although the exterior remains the same some interior walls were removed to make some larger and this reduced the total number. I have tried to address some of the unclear sentences in the residences section - would you take a look and see if it makes more sense now?— Rod ^talk 08:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's better. The first sentence in the 2nd paragraph in the Vicar's Chapel is still very confusing. In the prior paragraph you talk of several buildings, then begin with "The building", need specificity at the beginning of a new paragraph. But more importantly, either I am totally dense, or that sentence just very confusing. The first paragraph seems to describe a building which is still standing, so how can it be rubble? Is it that just a skeleton of the building remains? Especially since you then go on to describe wall of the building. I'm also guessing that Chilcote Conglomerate is some type of stone? Because it's so confusing, I'm not even sure what needs to be fixed. Regarding the residences section, much better. What I mean about the number of houses is that if you state how many there were originally, you should really state how many there are currently. I think if you inserted a sentence in the 2nd paragraph, after talking about the rear extensions, along the lines, "With all the modifications and combinations over the centuries, currently there are X houses along the Close, Y to the east, and Z to the west". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have attempted to revise the Vicars Chapel and library section. The building is standing (pic in the article). Rubble is short for Rubble masonry. I've wikilinked Conglomerate (geology) and removed the confusing title from the place of quarrying. I have looked again at the sources and can't find anything which says how many dwellings there are currently.— Rod ^talk 17:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

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

   While not against the MOS, I would remove the citations from the lead, per WP:LEADCITE. Everything there is non-controversial, and is cited in the body of the article.

• The claim about being the oldest street has previously been challenged, hence the reference and I understood that the direct quote (John Julius Norwich) should have its source next to it.— Rod ^talk 08:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Much better. And yes, I the claim had been contested, definitely leave the cite, I was unaware of that. And you are also correct about quotes and citations. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   No dead links; where need, page numbers are given.

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Goes into just enough depth to flesh out each section, and covers all aspects of the subject.

   B. Focused (see summary style):

   Each section is focused on what it needs to be.

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars, very stable over the past several years.

5. 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:

   All are either in the public domain, or have the appropriate CC license.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Very nice use of photos in the article.

6. Overall: Very close to being GA. Just the prose issues detailed in the first section

   Pass or Fail:

   hold