Talk:Cassiobury House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 08:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The writing of this article is generally passable, not great. Its prose is acceptable, but the lead is very very short and does not summarize the article as it should. I have made some minor corrections here and there, but was unable to find a date for the first sentence of the History#Beginnings section with the given citation.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   It is on this hill that the article truly dies. Firstly, the in-line citation is very poor. Secondly, I ran this through the CopyVio machine and came up with 49% confidence that the article might plagiarize some of its sources or violate copyright. Closer inspection (comparisons) of the top source on the tool showed that some of them were red herrings. There are paragraphs that are very well cited, but the majority of the article is not.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I'm not an expert in this area at all, and given the lack of citation I can't make further citation, so it looks to my untrained eye that this article passes here. While there is a bunch of unused material in citation #3 for example, it looks like it doesn't really apply to the article. Regardless, I would have found some way to work it into the article somewhere (Beginnings maybe?).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am not going to pass this article purely because of its poor in-line citation. The article's writing is decent but should be looked over for correct grammar, prose should improved, and the article's content should be revised so as to not so badly trip the CopyVio machine.

Thanks. Surprised on the citation front - it is absolutely awash with inline citation, but clearly it's got to be revised at some point. 14:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Beginning

I am beginning my third Good Article review to determine whether or not the article in question, Cassiobury House, passes muster and is worthy of the Green Plus. I will review this article according to the instructions provided here and confirm or deny that Cassiobury House meets the Good Article criterion.