# Talk:Brislington House

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brislington House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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)
Yeah, divided is better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
Fair enough Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Otherwise, this one's pretty tight and on track for GA. Nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

The info box here, is running down through four sections (I have a wide screen too); that is surely too much. Can it not be condensed n some way?  Giano  19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is rather long, isn't it? Hmmm - these days it is also tricky with everyone having monitors of all different shapes and sizes....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I should think without a wide screen, it must be going off under the desk and heading into town.  Giano  21:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
As you may know I am generally in favour of infoboxes, adding them to all articles I create if possible, as they provide quick access to information which may be what some readers are after. However taking onboard your comments and recognising that this particular one is very long (due to the different structures having separate listsings) I have used Template:Collapsed infobox section begin to shorten it. What do others think?— Rod talk 09:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Much better! 100 times better in fact.  Giano  18:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I've been here all these years and never knew there was a handy thing to do that so I can make the infobox spring in and out like an accordion! Nice/I like it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Casliber? Where have you been? Some of us have been trying to pioneer the collapsed info box for years. 21:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brislington House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20131013121730/http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/tag/brislington-house/ to http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/tag/brislington-house/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.longfoxmanor.co.uk/history-of-long-fox/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)