Talk:Marmion Tower

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 13:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I will be taking on the review of the article for GA criteria, expect a full review by tomorrow but at least a preliminary review today. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks - changes made noted below. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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.	Only a few minor issues that could be addressed. Infobox I am under the impression that the tower's height, condition and possibly materials could be added. The height is definitely given at three storeys (does it need a ft/m height?), the materials as stone and the condition, I would guess that the English Heritage would know the condition of the tower since they're managing it. I haven't come across a published height for the building, which is what would normally go into an info box. I'll add the stone bit in. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Fair enough, that is satisfactory. Lede "near to the village of West Tanfield in North Yorkshire, England." -> near the village of West Tanfield in North Yorkshire, England. Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC) "and is now controlled by English Heritage." -> and is now managed by English Heritage. Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC) History "and first Sir John Marmion and then his daughter-in-law Maud were given licence by the Crown to crenellate the manor house there in 1314 and 1348 respectively." -> Sir John Marmion, in 1314, and later his daughter-in-law Maud, in 1348, were given licence by the Crown to crenellate the manor house there, or, Sir John Marmion and later his daughter-in-law Maud were given licence by the Crown to crenellate the manor house there, in 1314 and 1348 respectively. In either case, remove "and first". I've gone for a variant, to ensure licences appear in the plural. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Fair enough, the variant is fine. ""the castelle of Tanfeld, or rather as it is nowe, a meane manor Place, stondith hard on the ripe of Ure, wher I saw no notable building but a fair toured Gateway and a Haule of squarid stone."" -> and the significance of this is? It is a description of the appearance of the castle during the 16th century - the only one we have, as far as I know. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC) I figure the significance of this is in the fact that this is a description of the tower as before it was ruined. That I think is a bit more significant than the time period it came from, in either case it can stay.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lede summarizes the content well, the article is broken up into sections discussion the various aspects of the topic, I haven't seen any issues with words to watch, the citations are all provided and in an appropriate format.
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.	The relevant references and links to the sources have been provided with proper attribution placed in the article.
	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).	Only a single citation to what could be construed as a primary source and with nearly all of the secondary sources readily available and from apparently reliable sites, there is not issue with the citations and sources currently provided. Indeed after looking through Harris, 2006, Baldwin, 2011, Pettifer, 2002, and Chrystal, 2013, I have found practically no disagreements between those sources and the ones provided here. It's relatively easy to smash through about 5 or so sources when they all fail to exceed more than two or three paragraphs about the subject matter anyway.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I can find no trace of original research, with such a small article it would have been immediately apparent after looking at the sources if there had been any OR violations.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's copyright violator rates it unlikely with a 6.5% confidence that a copyvio exists, having looked at the sources, I will note that paraphrasing is relatively close to the original writing but not so much so that it appears to have been copied, alongside proper attribution the article is without issue on this front.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	From a search of google books and the review of several of the results, it appears that information regarding Marmion Tower is scant and scattered. Anything I have found is simply a replay of what is already here, as such, I find that the article sufficiently covers the subject matter and that no major aspects have been left out. Per Ritchie's comment I took a closer look at the second source, there's not much to add but I think the article could be expanded slightly to include the following content; First-floor; The window on the West side that Ritchie mentioned. "On the west is a wide two-light window with a square head and large stops to its label, much weathered but apparently meant for dogs." *Overall Perhaps also mention that there has been almost no change to its condition from 1780. This can go either in architecture or history. "The building is now roofless, but seems to be little altered from its condition in 1780 or thereabout, when Grose drew it for the fourth volume of his Antiquities of England and Wales." The source actually asserts that there was almost no change in the condition from 1780 until 1914, which doesn't seem significant / useful, particularly as it was subsequently restored - and so the statement may no longer be true today. I also don't think that the lintel of the west window is worth elaborating on. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Ah, fair enough, then I'll strike the comments and relist criterion 3a as a pass. I note you have been working on the article and will move to strike the redundant comments as well. Other than that, I still think the article is about as expansive as it's going to be able to get. At most, we're looking at another 300 bytes of prose. Granted, that's quite a bit for this article, but, it's still only a small amount.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article practically refuses to stray away from the topic of Marmion Tower, even to discuss its' owners by anything more than their names.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is presented in a neutral tone free of weasel words, puffery and with the sources (relatively few though they are) being given appropriate weight.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable with no recent edit-wars, conflicts or disputes and no outstanding queries on the talk page.
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.	Images are suitable tagged with CC and own work (PD) licenses.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images have suitable captions for the purpose; I might suggest expanding the caption for the "plan of the ground floor" to include "of Marmion Tower", but, otherwise this is satisfactory. I wouldn't normally add "of Marmion Tower", as its evident from the title of the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	The article is very near GA standard, just a few minor nitpicks with GA 1a that could be cleared up. The issues have been addressed. The article is relatively short but does quite well to cover the available material for the topic.

I will be using the above table to complete the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hchc2009, I have completed my initial review of the article, thanks for your work on the article it was an interesting, if short, read. I didn't come across any major issues and will due a second review of the article pending your changes. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The article has less than 3K of prose. Are you sure it meets the "broad in coverage" part of the criteria? For example, A History of the County of York North Riding: Volume 1 doesn't appear to have been used, which has some information not in the article eg: "On the west [of the first floor room] is a wide two-light window with a square head and large stops to its label, much weathered but apparently meant for dogs". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd gone through several sources myself and hadn't found anything of use, I can take a look at your source and update my review if necessary. Actually, Ritchie333 the article has cited the source you mention, but I'll give it another look through anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Aha - the problem there is that BHO is not the source itself, which is the journal its republishing. Anyone could (in theory) get a British Library pass and look at the original printed versions of the sources, just that website makes verification and research far easier. The citation in the article should be changed to match - a while ago BHO had "Wikipedia" in its dropdown list of citation formats, but that's gone so you'll have to do it by hand :-( (see footnote #4 in Oxford Street for an example) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I see, the original source is Victoria County History, London, 1914. I'll update the reference in that case, cheers for noticing that. I believe I have updated the reference correctly, pending your satisfaction, Ritchie333. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other sources on this particular tower, but happy to be pointed in their direction if anyone can find them... NB: I've tried the usual, such as the JSTOR academic journal site, a major university library, Google books, archive sites etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

"'Parishes: West Tanfield', in A History of the County of York North Riding: Volume 1, ed. William Page (London, 1914), pp. 384-389. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/yorks/north/vol1/pp384-389 [accessed 14 July 2016]."

The above are the instructions for citing the source on the website, BHO, I can understand undoing the change in publisher, but, the title is incorrect as it stands. The article Parishes: West Tanfield was published in A History of the County of York North Riding Volume 1. It's not a standalone publishing, it's a bit like separating Vopiscus' works from the Historia Augusta, even though Vopiscus is likely fictional, his works were written in the Historia Augusta and not separate to it.

Hchc2009, I forgot to sign so you wouldn't have been pinged. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The citation style in the template asks for the title of the page in question - which is correctly cited, as per the title of the web page at the top. Any publisher can ask us to cite in a particular style, but we don't have to adopt their preference; indeed, we shouldn't unless it matches with the style on the article page concerned. Ideally cite web would allow for original publisher, alternate titles etc., but it doesn't appear to do so. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I was think more along the lines of the journal citation (title of the work and title of the journal), if cite-web doesn't allow for this, then, I don't think there's anything left to do about it. My issues have been addressed. I'll be passing the article. Thanks for your work on the article, I think I said it before but an interesting if short read. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers - and thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)