Talk:Norman Lykes House/GA1

Overall

• Nice work! This is very close to GA, I only have a few comments, organized by criterion below. Let me know if you have any questions and feel free to push back on anything you don't agree with. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking up the review, I appreciate it. I've responded to some of the comments below and will address the rest later. Epicgenius (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

    @Zzz plant, thanks for the comments. I think I've resolved all of them now. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

    • • I've reviewed your changes and they all look good! I just have just one new question about the expanded lede, which is that I'm not sure "contrast with the surrounding landscape" is conveyed in the body, particularly as Macmillan describes it as "blending in". Maybe "integration with the surrounding landscape"? Otherwise this is ready to promote. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

        @Zzz plant, oops. I suspected that wasn't the right word for it; I fixed it now. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Prose

• BHere I am mostly looking to make sure the prose is easy to read and comprehend. Grammar issues (like sentence fragments or excessive run-ons) can be flagged here, although if you find something extremely minor and uncontroversial I tend to just fix it myself. Anything you feel is unclear should also be flagged. I also tend to bring up repetition and prose that reads as a timeline, even if not severe enough to be GA-blocking. Zzz plant (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• prose is generally clear and intuitively organized Zzz plant (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• could wikilink to first instance of lunette Zzz plant (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  • It seems like this is already done. - EG
• "Rattenbury and Wright deliberately placed the office's windows at eye level, and he added a built-in skylight above the desk." the "he" reads a bit ambiguous here to me because you were talking about both of them in tandem Zzz plant (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Fixed to clarify that it was both of them. - EG
• the reception section is kinda quote-heavy, which makes it read slightly like a sequence of reviewer sound bites rather than a synthesized account of the house's reception. I think some of the less distinctive quotations could be paraphrased. I'd also recommend organizing the commentary thematically with more connective tissue, but that part is not necessary for GA. Zzz plant (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  • I've tried to cut this down a bit. - EG
• I suggest naming the authors of the critique articles instead of just the publication name- as in The Scotsman as an entity didn't review the house, Duncan Macmillan reviewed it for The Scotsman Zzz plant (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Done. - EG

MoS

• BI am looking mostly at the lede, which should provide a standalone summary of the body (kind of a roadmap for the reader of what to expect in the rest of the article), per MOS:LEDE. Other GA-relevant MoS are: MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, MOS:WAF, and MOS:LIST.
• lede summarizes most of the body, but I think reception should be touched on as well as the fact that it was Wright's last design, since that seems to be the house's main claim to fame Zzz plant (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Done. - EG
• no other MoS concerns besides that Zzz plant (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Verifiability

Scope

Neutrality

• BI'm looking both for peacock terms/vaguely promotional or brochure-esque language AND due weight. For instance, if you're reviewing an article about an album which in truth received mixed reviews but only praise is reported, that would be a neutrality problem even if no words to watch are present.Zzz plant (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• tone is academic and formal, with no evident bias. personal statements are carefully attributed instead of stated in wikivoice, such as "Melton's daughter, Julie Franks, later said..." and "yet another commentator compared the building to "a series of tan spindles"." Zzz plant (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Illustration

• BI check all the illustrations (images, but also graphs or diagrams if present) in the article to make sure they are both relevant and compatibly-licensed. Fair-use images--such as an album or film cover-- can be allowed if they have an appropriate justification filled out. If a GA-nominated article has no illustration, this can be fine if there is nothing available. Zzz plant (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• File:Norman Lykes House, 2010 (cropped and adjusted).jpg
  • CC BY-SA 3.0 Zzz plant (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  • relevant and good-quality picture for the infobox Zzz plant (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• File:Norman Lykes House (December 2019).jpg
  • CC BY-SA 4.0 Zzz plant (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
  • relevant as it shows a different view of the home Zzz plant (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• optional suggestion (not required for GA promotion): add alt text for accessibility Zzz plant (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Stability

• B I look for recent and/or ongoing content dispute, by checking the article history and the talk page. Note that reversion of vandalism, splitting/merging proposals, and good-faith improvements to the article do not pertain to stability. At this point I also check the article statistics here on xtools, to make sure the nominator is a major contributor. Zzz plant (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• article history is brief and constructive, with no signs of recent disputes there or on talk page. nominator is primary author (82.8%) Zzz plant (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments/questions

Uhhh anybody know how I was automatically subscribed to the GA review section "discussion" when this page was created? I genuinely cannot figure out what has caused that. Reviewed so many EpicGenius articles that Wikipedia just assumes I'm interested when a new one gets opened, eh? –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 19:24, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe check ur watchlist idk how that happened tbh. TheAnomynousEditor (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't watchlisted, it was subscribed to like a talk page discussions, as if I had replied to someone here. Strange stuff. I like the review progress box up top though, that's a nice idea. I think I'm going to yoink that idea for my own GA reviews. Perhaps Wikipedia just knew I would like it. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 20:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

About that review you conducted right now Zzz plant, what tools do you use to review the article (e.g., xtools)? TAE (or TheAnomynousEditor) ( fancy a chat💬💭?) (My contributions😁) — Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I use the xtools page statistics feature to check the authorship percentage. These are user scripts I personally use while GA reviewing:

• User:The Earwig/copyvios.js - for first-pass copyright violation scan
• User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter.js - to flag unreliable sources
• User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool - to close a review as successful or unsuccessful at the end

Zzz plant (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)