Talk:Montacute House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.	well written
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: ~~perhaps a little short - could say a bit more about the history (Phelips arrest? Lord Curzon?), interior features, gardens, use in film, for instance.~~ (done) ok. Layout: ok. Weasel: ok. Fiction: n/a. Lists: n/a.
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.	Well organised sources and refs.
	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).	Not a problem
	2c. it contains no original research.	~~I don't think so, but a few paragraphs remain uncited - most likely they are covered by nearby links, but please show this adding or repeating links as appropriate.~~ (done) ok.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good coverage
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Level of detail seems reasonable throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	ok
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Has undergone intensive team editing recently.
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.	All images are suitably licensed. Hard to believe the stone screen is a watercolour, amazing piece of work.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well chosen images.
	7. Overall assessment.	Credit to longstanding editors on this article - User:Rodw, User:Giano, and more recently User:Malleus Fatuorum. This is a handsome article, elegantly structured and illustrated, and a pleasure to review. It is also notable for its long preparation with careful and energetic collaboration by experienced editors. Well done everyone.