Wikipedia:Peer review/Chartwell/archive1

Chartwell

As Winston Churchill's country home for over 40 years, and as "the most important country house in Europe" in the 1930s, I should like to get Chartwell to FA. A peer review will be of great assistance and any and all comments are welcomed. I'm most grateful to Tim riley for his GAR and to Hchc2009 for his plans of the house. Many thanks, KJP1 (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Quote in lead caption should be attributed, and quotes in the lead should be cited per WP:LEADCITE

Done.

Sorry, what I was actually suggesting for the lead caption was in-text attribution, not just citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Is that both for the infobox quote and the lead quote? "I bought Chartwell for that view" is proving interesting. Everybody quotes it but I can't at the present track it back to Churchill. I'll keep looking. KJP1 (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Section headings shouldn't begin with The

Done.

• I'd suggest having History as the first section

Done.

• Suggest some work on citation formatting before FAC. Citations to web-based sources should be complete enough for us to find it even without having the link. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Still to do. KJP1 (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Now tried. KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, many thanks indeed. Shall do the cites in the infobox and lead as suggested, and removed the "the"s from the headers. Interestingly, Tim suggested exactly the same thing re. swapping the House and History sections. The citation formatting is my problem as this is absolutely not my forte. But I shall see what I can do. Thanks again and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - Have now had a stab at formatting of the web-based citations. Would you be kind enough to have a look and let me know if I've done it right. I'm afraid formatting is not my strongest suit, but I hope I've followed the instructions. There was an archived source that completely defeated me, so I switched it for a book, with which I'm more comfortable. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Definitely more complete, sometimes too much so ;-). In many cases it won't be necessary to include both a publisher and a work for web-based sources. I've had a go at fixing them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks again. And I think the flipped flow, with the History first, and the House following, also works better. KJP1 (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)