Talk:Brislington House/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fox classified the patients at Brislington House..~~ ~~- would prefer a different verb to "classified" - maybe "sorted"?~~

I think the key point is that he thought the different classes (which were very narrowly defined) should be treated differently - hence the different blocks. I've changed classified to divided but I think it needs to be stronger than sorted as this was a key component of the way the place worked, and even the design of the building.— Rod ^talk 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, divided is better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WRT comprehensiveness, the segment about Perceval and the book is interesting. If there is anything more specific to Brislington House in the book it'd be good to add - any more of his reflections etc.

I've not been able to identify anything further. He was complaining/campaigning about mental health care in general in the era & used Brislington House as an example as he had been a patient there.— Rod ^talk 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ditto the one line on Frank Miles - a bit tantalisingly chopped-off - any extra info would be good.~~

I did have a bit more ie " He was cared for by his brother, the clergyman Charles Oswald Miles, but died in 1891 of what was diagnosed as 'general paralysis of the insane', often a term for neurosyphilis, exhaustion and pneumonia." but this was removed at DYK review as I could find any sources to support it.— Rod ^talk 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this one's pretty tight and on track for GA. Nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

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

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

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- great, well done. sorry re delay, busy day.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]