Talk:The Abbey, Sutton Courtenay/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 23:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am looking forward to performing a review of this article. I see here that this article failed its first GA review, but I also see that the copyvio report is down to the 11% range, where the hits are titles (i.e., I am not seeing an issue). In addition, maintenance tags have been addressed, so I am very hopeful.

My approach is to review each section, make minor edits as I go along (links, punctuation, etc.) to save us both time and effort, and then assess the article against GA criteria. Feel free to revert edits that I make if you disagree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Introduction and infobox

• The infobox looks good.
• The introduction contains citations throughout, when per MOS:LEADCITE, to avoid redundant citations for content already covered and cite in the article - only claims or content subject to queries should be cited. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but I am calling it out because others may say something about this.
• The content looks good! I don't have any edits, but may return to this section after completing the rest of the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Buildings

• Citations are needed for content in the 1st and 4th paragraph.
• I am probably going to find this out shortly, but does The oldest still surviving parts of The Abbey are the north and west ranges, mean that the south and east ranges are not surviving?
• I don't quite understand Nineteenth-century accounts of the site show many inaccuracies.[4] in the fourth paragraph. Is the point that the sentences that follow are not accurate? Or just Parker also published a plan, but this was inaccurate in detail.[4]?

I guess I am just generally wondering why call out inaccurate portrayals? (not that there aren't valid reasons for doing so, I'm just not getting it - or how much of the 4th paragraph is inaccurate.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

• The copyvio report returns hits for quotes, titles/names of things, and a few instances where there are only so many ways to word the portion of the sentence. There is part of one sentence that I put in quotes because it's a duplicate in the copy vio report. Otherwise, it looks good! (2d)