Talk:Gulliford Farm

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 7 May 2018 by reviewer Jcc (talk · contribs).

Architecture

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comments

Comment: I should have said, it's also in need to a copy edit. KJP1 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What's needed is stronger sourcing. You can't use personal notes, or fragments of surveyors' reports. You need reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This is never easy for Grade II listed buildings. But there is this [1] and this [2], which show that there are two in Devon, so you'll need to distinguish in the title. Happy to advise further if you can find a couple more reliable sources. KJP1 (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've accepted the article, but Jams2018, KJP1's advice is worth following! jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Far too much unsourced detail.

This is in danger of turning into a family history page. Unless the sourcing improves, I'll remove the material that's poorly-sourced or not sourced at all. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have substantially trimmed the unsourced/POV details and tidied up the referencing a bit. If material is to go in, can it be properly sourced and written in an encyclopedic tone. It's easier to avoid adjectives, "beautiful" / "famed" etc., unless they are quotes. KJP1 (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jams2018 - we’ve now got a whole new paragraph without any citations. You have to source it, otherwise it will just get removed. KJP1 (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]