# Talk:Bass Maltings, Sleaford

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bass Maltings, Sleaford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 10:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 


### Tick box
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Comments on GA criteria
Pass
Appropriate reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Images are OK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Stable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Prose is clear and readable, conveying information simply and accurately. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
MoS requirements are met, though I query the need to sub-section the two main sections, particularly the second section. Per WP:Layout: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose". Though this a minor quibble, and is open to debate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Cites and sources check out. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Informative and detailed without being excessive or boring. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Query

Fail


### General comments
Pass. This is a well written and informative piece on an interesting group of buildings. It's nice to do a review on a discrete and simple subject which is well written and researched as it makes the task so easy! SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference 22 description says "Nos. 1389332 through 1389332" - looks like one of the numbers is in error. Would be good to have links/references to each of the entries referred to, also applies to ref 28. Keith D (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)