Wikipedia:Peer review/Bank Hall/archive1

Bank Hall[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have worked on the page since the day it was created (by myself) which i have researched for the past 10 years at least, on the house which i have a specialist knowledge of. I would like to submit for a peer review to get the article up to the best status of a Featured article but first i would like to know what details need ammending in the article and of any ways i could improve the page to get the page to good article and featured article status. I would be very grateful for your time to look over the article as there is so much history to Bank Hall, its estate and its family connections and residents that go back well over 400 years. I just hope that the work to get it to a featured article is at least near enough.

Many thanks, Bankhallbretherton (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara

Alt-text will be needed if you go to FAC. Done
"Bank Hall mansion house is a fine example of Jacobean architecture located south of the village of Bretherton, Lancashire."

"...a fine example" isn't in a neutral point-of-view. The statement: "Bank Hall is a Jacobean mansion house located south of the village Bretherton, Lancashire." is NPOV. Done

The table of contents is really long and some of the section have one or two sentences. Is there anyway they could be combined into larger sections? Done
The sections on the various plant life around the building are somewhat listy and should be converted to prose. Done
The citations you used should be formatted and not just a URL. Done
Image galleries are somewhat discouraged as that is what Commons is for. Replacing the gallery with a {{Commons category}} is a good idea, as it will link to the relevant category on Commons. Done
When using image thumbnails, the size shouldn't be included as the default size is specified by a user's preferences. Done

The article seems comprehensive enough and has plenty of references, but needs plenty of polishing before it goes to FAC. These are general ideas that would make the article better, but I can provide specific examples of what needs to be fixed, if need be. Also, consider reviewing an article on the backlog as that is how I came across yours. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 18:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the suggested edits and I would like to resubmit for a peer review to see what else needs doing, I have tried to break down the contents list as much as I can, but that is the only issue I felt was hard to do. Many thanks Bankhallbretherton (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to contact an editor on the volunteer list and ask them look at the article (no need to resubmit when this the review is still open). One other thing I thought of: it might be useful to replace the current infobox with {{Infobox Historic Site}} as it will allow you to add the Listed building status of Bank Hall, but that the decision in entirely up to you. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 16:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I was going to do that seen as you said but I have looked into it and it is under the Historic Buildings info box so I think I will leave it as that. How do you think it looks on a whole? I would like to get it to featured status but obviously need good article first! Bankhallbretherton (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox Historic building}} redirects {{Infobox building}}, but, I like said, its matter of personal preference. It shouldn't be too hard to get a good article. However, Belton House would be a model of a featured article on a similar topic. Niagara ^{Don't give up the ship} 19:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]