Talk:Bass Maltings, Sleaford

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bass Maltings, Sleaford article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Bass Maltings, Sleaford has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 12, 2015. (Reviewed version).

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lincolnshire Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Bass Maltings, Sleaford appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 April 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that since production ceased at Bass Maltings in Sleaford, the complex has been used for rearing chickens?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bass Maltings, Sleaford.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bass Maltings, Sleaford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 10:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images are OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is clear and readable, conveying information simply and accurately. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MoS requirements are met, though I query the need to sub-section the two main sections, particularly the second section. Per WP:Layout: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose". Though this a minor quibble, and is open to debate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cites and sources check out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Informative and detailed without being excessive or boring. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Fail

General comments

Pass. This is a well written and informative piece on an interesting group of buildings. It's nice to do a review on a discrete and simple subject which is well written and researched as it makes the task so easy! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference problem

Reference 22 description says "Nos. 1389332 through 1389332" - looks like one of the numbers is in error. Would be good to have links/references to each of the entries referred to, also applies to ref 28. Keith D (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]