Talk:John Douglas (English architect)

Assessment Report

1. The article should make use of sections.
2. Images would be helpful - the architect if possible and some of his works.
3. References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.) Peter I. Vardy 17:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Above criteria met. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pre-GAC comments

Lead

• "and practised throughout his career in Chester, Cheshire": this sounds like he practiced only in Cheshire, how about saying he was based in Chester instead?
  • I have added "from an office" and hope that this is OK. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• "alterations to and restoration of existing churches": would "restoring and renovating existing churches" be a bit more concise while still accurate? It would also prevent the repetition of "alterations" and "existing buildings".
  • Done; tidied an awkward sentence. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Biography

• How about changing "His younger sisters were Mary Hannah, who was born in 1832 but died in 1834, five months before the birth of Emma, who died aged 14 in 1848" to "His younger sisters were Mary Hannah and Emma, who were born in 1832 and 1834 respectively. Mary Hannah died five months before Emma's birth, and Emma herself died in 1848." I think the first sentence is trying to cram in a bit too much information, and it would be better split.
  • Done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Do we have any information on how Elizabeth and John met?
  • The sources give no information on this. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• On a different note, what kind of name is Sholto Theodore?? No wonder he resorted to drink.
  • A family name! I have added a footnote about this. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nev1 (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Douglas (architect)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, wide-ranging article, very easy to read and to assess.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well and appropriately Illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well and appropriately Illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is a fine example of what a GA-article should be, comprehensive, easy to read and easy to assess. Possibly an FA-class article, but I can only award GA.Pyrotec (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the article, it is well deserving of a GA-class.Pyrotec (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)