Talk:Woodland House

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Woodland House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I'd be happy to do a review on this article. Rodw (talk · contribs) 21:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This is an interesting article about an interesting building. I think there are a few areas which might need considering before it can meet all the GA criteria:

Have sought to respond on behalf of NSSF. Quite uninvited, but he appears not to have responded to his last GA and I didn't want the deadline for this one to be missed. KJP1 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• It would be useful to include the date of construction in the lead.

Done.

It now says "1875-5" nut in the article says acquired 1875 & moved in 1977.— Rod ^talk 19:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my typing's awful. Now corrected. Interestingly, Pevsner gives a single date of 1876.

• "Fildes took up residence in Woodland House in October 1877 and lived there until his death in the house in February 1927" is quite similarly worded to this source. (I think the BHO source should include the editor (FHW Sheppard) and give the date of publication (1973))

Reworded.

The format of the reference (4) could still be improved.

I have expanded the ref format.— Rod ^talk 20:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• It is currently four paragraphs (two of them very short) which could be reduced (per WP:LEAD). Could some of this be merged? (I would be tempted to move the quote into "Location" alongside "such a delicious site"),

Redrafted to the recommended three.

Location

• could "three quarters of an acre" use the convert template eg .75 acres (0.30 ha). Also "43 feet long and 24 feet wide" could have metric conversions.

Quite beyond my limited technical powers, unfortunately.

Added.— Rod ^talk 19:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Design

• The commas in "Shaw had prepared preliminary designs of Woodland House by August 1875, and constructed by W. H. Lascelles, building began early in 1876." don't seem quite right to me.

Nor to me. Reworded.

• The article says "This arrangement did not apparently provide sufficient light and the central pair were altered in 1881 to provide the present large four-light window which rises to the roof parapet" which could be considered close paraphrasing of the source which says "these did not apparently provide sufficient light and the central pair were altered in 1881 to provide the present large four-light window rising to the roof parapet".

Reworded to avoid the paraphrase.

• Is the direct quote "nothing comes short of ganing the effect wanted" correct or should this be "gaining"?

Corrected, as I'm sure it should be gaining.

• Italian Renaissance could be capitalised and wikilinked

Done.

References

• The format of dates is a mix of dmy format & numerical year, month date - it would be best if these were standardised.

Not done. Will see if I can.

I have done this (a one click tool).— Rod ^talk 19:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 7 ("FILDES, Sir Luke (1844–1927)". English Heritage. Retrieved January 22, 2012.) is broken

Fixed.

• I'm not sure external links is the right title for the book and ONDB citation - I might call them a bibliography but I can see where Davis is cited in the text?

Not done. Will ponder. Now had a try. Renamed as bibliography and added Cherry/Pevsner. Two problems. I've used sfn as this is now the only reference style I can work with, but I appreciate one should follow the reference style of the article. Second, I can't make the Davis ODNB link work, and therefore still get my script error. Not sure what to do about this. KJP1 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've had a go at the ref formats.— Rod ^talk 20:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• NEW The new ref 7 to the gazette is a bare URL.— Rod ^talk 19:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - don't know how to correct this. I lifted it from the PDF you attached, but Reflinks, the only way I know how to convert bare URLs, will not convert it. I could remove? I'm not sure the banker is particularly notable? KJP1 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I have expanded this to include date etc.— Rod ^talk 20:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, and moved as per below. KJP1 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Other sources which may be useful

• article from the Express
• objection to planning application, see also and also

Used in a short additional section on Robbie Williams. I think his notability, and the notability of his planning arguments with Page contribute to the notability of the house.

• Lots of references in this book
• Was it also owned by Walther Augustus Brandt (see London Gazette)

Done.

Personally I wouldn't have added this to the lead but into the design section before "Winners father".— Rod ^talk 20:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Amended in line with this suggestion. KJP1 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the three sources about the planning application for the expansion of the basement is worth a mention (and the famous neighbour who made the objection.— Rod ^talk 19:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed and added. KJP1 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope these comments make sense?— Rod ^talk 21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Very clear - many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I've now done all that I can. But is it enough? Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

NEW - The article is looking much better and I think we are nearly there. Would it be worth including Brigadier General Charles Forbes Blane living in the house 1929-1930 or Edward James Barford (1934-1935) according to this article from the Express. Neither appear to have wikipedia aryticles at present but otherwise a chuck of the history of the house is missing?— Rod ^talk 20:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Anything else we need? KJP1 (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Nothing else I can see so I now think this meets the criteria.— Rod ^talk 06:56, 12 January 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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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: