Talk:Cedars Hall

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 21 December 2017 by reviewer KJP1 (talk · contribs).

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Somerset Low‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some comments on the draft

A good draft, on a notable building. Some suggestions/issues below:

Copyright violation - The copyright detector I use shows a 65.4% match with the Vimeo site for Wells Cathedral School. In brief, all of the below, which is most of the overview, is an exact match:

"... provides the capacity for audiences of 350 in its main recital hall named Eavis Hall after Old Wellensian Michael Eavis, CBE, founder of the Glastonbury Festival. Eavis Hall is a flexible and modern performance space accommodating an orchestra of 60 performers and an audience of 250, with other configurations possible through adaptation of seating and platforms. Whilst Cedars Hall’s award-winning design was devised to give chamber musicians the very best acoustic experience, the flexibility of the technical specification means that this venue is accessible for performers of every discipline – for amplified music, dance, drama and lectures.

In addition to events in Eavis Hall, Cedars Hall provides rehearsal, teaching and performance space for the school’s 200 specialist musicians and serves as a hub for its significant community outreach, which provides music education (including workshops, concerts and masterclasses) for thousands of primary school children, elderly and disability groups in the South West each year.

Cedars Hall includes three further teaching and practice spaces, each with an adjoining unique observation facilities as well as the John Baxter Foyer, bar and state-of-the-art recording facilities."

I'm not sure which was copied from which, or perhaps you wrote both? Either way, it can't stand as it is and needs re-working.

I wrote both on behalf of Wells Cathedral School, but I have updated the text that appears on Vimeo if we can use the text as is for Wikipedia. See link with updated text: https://vimeo.com/199394813 Mandy Hole (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership - It seems odd to me that the article doesn't make clear that the hall is part of Wells Cathedral School, which I understand it to be. Am I missing something?

Thank you - no, I read it again and this isn't clear! Can we change the first line to 'Cedars Hall is Wells Cathedral School's performing arts venue located in Wells, Somerset, England...' Mandy Hole (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the statements don't follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and their supporting cites are not from independent sources. The clearest example is the one about Eric Parry Architects. They really can't be considered an independent source for the claim that the firm is "an established and award-winning practice with a portfolio of notable work". I'm not saying they aren't, just that them saying that about themselves can hardly be considered independent. It would do, just, for the neutral claim that they were the architects, although another source would be better. I appreciate that this appears to conflict with the practice followed on the Eric Parry article, which is an accepted article. But I would suggest that best practice hasn't been followed there, and I suspect that the article has been substantially created by someone with a connection to the firm. The best way forward is to find reliable third-party sources which support the claims. The next best way forward would be to retain the current sources but removed the promotional wordings.

Sorry - could we change to 'Eric Parry Architects is an Award Winning Global Architecture, Design, Planning and Strategic Consultancy based in London.' If you still need a link, there is an article about him on The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/property-and-architecture/architect-eric-parry-shares-his-inspirations/Mandy Hole (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly better. I've toned down the overly-promotional language, and given the Telegraph as the reference. KJP1 (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Hole - These are my key concerns. Do drop a line here if it would help to discuss how you might go about addressing them, or need clarification on any point. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy - many thanks. I'll get back shortly. In the meantime, I've tried out an infobox. Not compulsory, but they can be useful. See what you think. KJP1 (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, the Vimeo issue is sorted. One other issue. I'm getting a match with this site [1], WellsSomerset.com, The Official Tourist site for Wells, for the second para. of the introduction (lead). Again, I'll hazard a guess that you wrote it, or that they've taken it from the school's website. Given it might be difficult to get the Tourist site to change, can we reword the draft article. Something like:

"As well as the events venue, Eavis Hall, Cedars Hall offers space to the school's musicians, for teaching, rehearsing and performing. It also acts as a hub for wider participation and involvement by the local community, providing music education (including workshops, concerts and masterclasses) for young people, the elderly and for disability groups throughout South West England." Obviously, re-word at will. KJP1 (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have taken the liberty of doing so myself. Do re-word as you wish. KJP1 (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs

I'm now straying a little from the criteria for acceptability, but we might as well cover off some of the basics. The Contractors section consists of short para.s, which are not in accordance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. See this Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout and this Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Paragraphs. The only lengthy para.is overly detailed for an article about the building. I would run them all together. I shall do this, to show you what I mean, but I'll do it in a single edit so that you can "Undo" it if you don't like it. KJP1 (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've similarly converted the Awards section into a prose paragraph, rather than a list.

Conclusion

If you can address the text similarities between what are now the second and third paragraphs of the Performance and practice spaces section (see above), I think the key points are addressed. The prose is sometimes still a little too promotional, "unique" and "state-of-the-art" facilities, for example, and it is still over-reliant on sources directly connected to the school or to the contractors who worked on the building. But I think these are lesser issues that can be addressed over time. I have tried to add some "independent" sources - it is quite a well-covered building and I'm sure more could be found. So key points:

be careful of possible copyright violations - even if you've written both!;
try to avoid overly-promotional language;
try to find some sources that are not directly connected to the subject of the article.

It is a very interesting building and you have done a good job on the article to date. Let me know if any more clarification s needed. KJP1 (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now fine with this, and have pushed it through. Many congratulations. It could do with some Categories. I shall see what I can find. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]