Wikipedia:Peer review/Wyntoon/archive1

Wyntoon

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I wrote 99% of this by myself and I wish to have some objective opinions about it, with a view to going to WP:GAN.

Thanks, Binksternet (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off thank you for undertaking the effort to bring this article to GA quality. I will review with the GA Criteria in mind.

I would consider renaming the first four sections from the name of the owner to something a little more descriptive. It's just my opinion though. You can use other articles about architecture or building history as examples.
There are some tense issues with this sentence, "The photos included ones of Hearst's communications office at Wyntoon, built next to Bear House to keep him abreast of current events." "Ones" and "communications office"? Can this be fixed?
I'd remove the "pampered" from "pampered dachshunds". Unnecessary opinionated detail.
Who is "Davies"? I don't see reference to this person until it says that W.R. Hearst and Davies stayed at Bear House during WWII.
I'm not sure what the death of the two dogs has to do with the house. It seems ancillary to the history. My opinion again.
Regarding References

From what I can tell ref 16 refers to the Freudenheim book, while ref 17 actually gives the full reference. Shouldn't these be reversed?
It appears as though Ref 4 and 24, the American Heritage references, are dead links. These should be fixed.

Overall it appears as though the article is in great shape. I would beef up the lead a bit. It's supposed to be a summary of the entire article yet I don't see much about notable visitors or what its status is today. I also think a bit more could be added to the summary, especially of the Hearst ownership, the acrimonious nature of how it was acquired by W.R. Hearst etc.
Other than that what I've said above I think you're in good shape and the article should pass GA without a problem. This concludes my review. Please consider reviewing an article here or a WP:GAC to alleviate the ever-present backlog. If you have specific questions please contact me at my talk page as I do not routinely watch review pages. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Excellent points, all. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to see what's happened to the article since I started it as a stub some 16 months ago. — Quicksilver^{T @} 19:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An under-appreciated historic site, that's for sure. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have tackled the described problems, except for the bit about the dachshunds dying at Wyntoon. I left that in because their graves can be seen at Wyntoon, and their presence was an essential part of the stories people tell about the place. Going to WP:GAC! Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]