# Talk:Nannau Hall

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nannau Hall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Cltjames (talk · contribs) 12:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Spartathenian (talk · contribs) 03:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I will do this review. I should be able to report at the weekend, if not before. Spartathenian (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
A lot of work has gone into this article, and it's a very interesting piece of history with a good breadth of coverage which remains in scope. Although I've done a bit of copyediting, the article is well written on the whole. If you intend taking it to the WP:FAC level, however, you would need to thoroughly proofread it first and make sure you've dotted all the ayes and crossed all the tees. For example, whereas I think a sentence like Then began the transition of Nannau to the Vaughan family and eventually the Vaughan baronets is fine for GA, the FAC guys might want it to be more, shall we say, formal and less chatty.
I like the images and their placement. As far as I can tell, there are no problems around copyright, original research, point of view, or stability.
For the reference sample spot-check, I chose all the fives:

05 – book source
15 – book source
25 – verifies Alice's ancestry on page 73, but the Google preview excluded page 42
35 – this supplements book source FN34; it partially verifies the sentence
45 – verified
55 – book source
65 – book source
75 – verified in conjunction with FN79
85 – book source
If you could please confirm that the book sources used for these references provide sufficient verification for the content they support, then I will be able to pass this as a good article. I won't place it on hold yet. Best wishes. Spartathenian (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

This article has a few issues even for GA level.
By the mid-20th century, the estate was "wrecked", and a succession of short-term owners saw much of the land sold off, the demolition of some of the 18th-century mansion, and failed attempts to establish a hotel at the hall. By 2020, the lead from the roof had been stolen, and the house was "deteriorating rapidly" These are MOS:QUOT violations as quote must be cited inline.
The passage is in the lead where it doesn't need to be sourced, providing that is done in the body, which is so.
In 1911, as recorded by Encyclopædia Britannica, the families of county rank in the neighbourhood of Dolgellau included those of Nannau this is not a POV claim and should be phrased in WP voice. "Encyclopedic style"
It's fine as it is, given the citation provided.
A one sentence explanation of cadet branches is warranted
Needed only a link to cadet branch where first mentioned in body.
The urn was later dated by Professor Christopher Hawkes as questionable use of POV syntax. Should probably be said with WP voice
Absolutely fine as is. British English.
The royal couple stayed at 'Glyn' with Baron Harlech and visited Nannau for lunch on 29 April 1949. Sort of seems like it belongs in 20th century but could be difficult to resection so maybe this is fine.
It belongs in the Royal visit section.
In 1958 a schedule of contents was made of all the possessions in the Hall, which was a sign of the selling off of the whole estate. The source for this is the schedule itself. Unless this source says that the schedule is a sign it is selling off then the claim is OR. You need another source here or to remove the OR.
I've removed the "sign of" clause because it was actually an opinion, and the sale took place several years later.
The estate's running costs would have been high. Repairs alone would have cost £8,000 It what sense is it the case the they would have been high? I think the correct grammar is that they "were high"?
No, correct as is. British English.
was sold in 1975 after 900 years of occupation It what sense is it 900 years of occupation. The article mentions multiple times the lands changed hands. Is the occupation over because it was sold? I am not following.
See latest edit which took this out.
The home was just a shell and hasn't been renovated since, there have also been issues such as break-ins and thefts. some of this solidly belongs in the current state
The correct grammatical term is "present tense". There is no problem with tense, but the comma should be a semi-colon (or it could be two sentences).
Some map reproductions are warranted. I expected that some of the sources have maps of the grounds?
A nice-to-have, yes, but by no means warranted.
Czarking0 (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I've given my views above on a point-by-point basis, but Cltjames should also have their say. Spartathenian (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
OK, I see there is a slight consistent issue with British English, but should be acceptable considering the scope of the article and location of the estate. Otherwise, @Spartathenian: has done some adjustments which I am happy with. Leaving a few sentences which could be moved, but I believe the serve they're purpose, as to repetition, there are different aspects to the text which needed addressing and it's not duplicate sentences, it's addressing the same issue from different perspectives, which I believe is ok, but can be changed if you want...? And as for map references, I believe the British listed building reference in the introduction should suffice, considering it's a reliable source and shows the same map with labels, so I will duplicate the reference into the infobox. Cltjames (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, I have now once again verified the references and can confirm the book source is correct for the pages you (@Spartathenian:) have chosen for verification. Now I will look over the advice given by @Czarking0: to try to improve some points made. Cltjames (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
You caught me just as I'm signing out. I'll be back in the morning, probably. Have a good weekend. Spartathenian (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your work, you too, have a good weekend. Cltjames (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi, Cltjames. Adding the map reference to the infobox is a good idea, and the other changes you've done are fine. I'm passing this as a good article and promoting it to WP:GA. As I said above, it's a really interesting piece of history, and I hope there is a better future in store for the building. Well done, and all the best. Spartathenian (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)