Talk:Bass Maltings, Sleaford/GA1

GA Review

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

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]