Talk:Pitfour estate/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

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.	Wonderful to read
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See comments
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.
	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).	Yet to verify
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	No issues
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

This article has clearly undergone significant renovation since the previous review. I find this article nearly faultless, although I am yet to check sources and check for close paraphrasing. Some notes: --LT910001 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• This article is a delight to read and I always enjoy reading wiki entries with descriptions such as "As of 2013 the temple is in a ruinous state"!
• “Buchan attributes:" suggest add "[title] Buchan attributes" to give some context as to who Buchan is.  Done
• Lastly, and the reason I left the note in the assessment per the MOS, is that this article has occasionally a very strange way of describing the owner by title and not name. For example, "Drinnie's Observatory was built by the fifth laird and later renovated by the local council." Such instances should be replaced with the name of the laird or appended to read: "The third lard, James Ferguson...".

Thanks, LT910001, the fluency is definitely down to Eric! I think I've addressed the Buchan attributes query by adding local historian.

We're presently checking through the article to tackle the point you raised about naming the lairds; it is a little awkward as the first three were all James Ferguson (although the second laird, Lord Pitfour, isn't such a problem) then the last three were all George Ferguson. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive and helpful comments, LT910001, they are much appreciated. Eric and I have given the article some tweaks this afternoon in line with your suggestions. We think we've incorporated them now for whenever you're ready to have another look through it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

The article reads much better. I see no issues preventing promotion, and have made the required changes. Well done! --LT910001 (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)