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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 23:31, 7 January 2017 (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.	A couple exceptions noted below, but overall in fine shape. Addressed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues noted.
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.	Looks good so far, with one exception that I can't see myself to verify. Addressed.
	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).	Appears fine.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None noted.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found with Earwig's tool.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	If this is all there is, I guess it will have to do, but see my comments below.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Most definitely stable enough.
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.	Fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Thinking on this one. It seems really odd to have no pictures of the current house itself, nor visual representations (floor plans, etc.) in lieu of such, from any point throughout its existence. Update: If that's all we have, GA criteria do not require us to obtain new photos.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass with the few minor tweaks.

First Read-through[edit]

• "The house at Burton Pynsent has been built section by section over the period over many years." I'm not sure that's in the correct tense, and it certainly looks like the second "over" should be "of" instead.
• Agreed, done. Worm^TT(talk)
• "The house is built on an flat terrace" Pretty sure that should be an 'a', shouldn't it?

  Yep, done. Worm^TT(talk)

• Not a problem per se, but I don't normally see this many redlinks in Wikipedia articles--seems like we have less tolerance for them, and editors are predisposed to put in stubs, redirects, or take out the links.

  I still like red-links, I'm old school! I'll see if I can reduce the number though. Worm^TT(talk)

• "In the mid 20th century, cows from the nearby Burton Dairy Farm ascended the column on more than one occasion." Wait, what? Either that's some subtle vandalism that got missed or there's far more of a story that needs to be told.

  I'm in two minds on the cows. We've found a number of sources which confirm that a cow attempted to climb the tower at least three times, with the third time leading to the cow's death - falling from the top. It's an interesting tidbit, but it's not about the house, it's about a tower in the grounds of the house, a tower which has it's own article. I think the best thing to do is just remove it the info, which I have done. Worm^TT(talk)

  That's partially my fault for not reading the child article--From the picture and text in this article it wasn't clear to me that the column was a tower with internal stairs, rather than a solid structure, hence my "huh?" reaction. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, my thoughts on reading this are... "So what?" I would like to know more about the significance of the house, and why it's a listed building--just for the association with Pitt? I think the article covers the bases, probably as adequately as can be given the paucity of information present, but I'd like to hear more about it. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at focussing the article a bit more, but generally the significance is in the ownership. Architecturally, it's not that special, built bit by bit over a couple of hundred years, with no particular interesting features. The ownership, especially it's ownership by Pitt and how he came to acquire it - that's got to be notable. As I said, I'll try to focus it a bit more there. Worm^TT(talk) 21:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passing this in recognition of your efforts and the limitations we can't realistically expect you to work around. However, I'd also recommend that the monument be merged into this article--I think it would improve coverage of both connected topics, and while the monument does appear separately covered and notable, that doesn't mean it MUST be a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]