I'm concerned that this article does not meet GA criterion 3a in that it does not address the main aspects of the topic. Specifically there is no coverage of the building's architecture or its grounds, and the balance is too much on the inn and restaurant. Therefore I'm putting this review on hold for the next seven days to allow time for the article's expansion.
Lead
A one-sentence lead cannot adequately summarise the article, and must be expanded anyway when the coverage of the article has improved.
Hmmm… this could be difficult. When I wrote the article, I went with what I could source, and that's what I was able to find (well, that and ghost stories, but I didn't think the latter were encyclopedic).
BTW, I think that ghost stories are fair game for an encyclopedia article on an old building, and add a bit of colour. I included them in
an article I wrote some time ago anyway; it's a matter of appropriate balance.
MalleusFatuorum02:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)reply
There seems to have been no progress made on the issues raised in this review. If work is in hand I'm happy to keep the review open, otherwise I'll close it in the next couple of days.
MalleusFatuorum00:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm concerned that this article does not meet GA criterion 3a in that it does not address the main aspects of the topic. Specifically there is no coverage of the building's architecture or its grounds, and the balance is too much on the inn and restaurant. Therefore I'm putting this review on hold for the next seven days to allow time for the article's expansion.
Lead
A one-sentence lead cannot adequately summarise the article, and must be expanded anyway when the coverage of the article has improved.
Hmmm… this could be difficult. When I wrote the article, I went with what I could source, and that's what I was able to find (well, that and ghost stories, but I didn't think the latter were encyclopedic).
BTW, I think that ghost stories are fair game for an encyclopedia article on an old building, and add a bit of colour. I included them in
an article I wrote some time ago anyway; it's a matter of appropriate balance.
MalleusFatuorum02:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)reply
There seems to have been no progress made on the issues raised in this review. If work is in hand I'm happy to keep the review open, otherwise I'll close it in the next couple of days.
MalleusFatuorum00:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.