Talk:Arnolfini, Bristol/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

Quite an interesting article, at about GA-level. I just have just a few comments:

• This article is some what confusing in respect of floors; and appears to contradict it's citations.

• History 2nd para, states: "three storeys of rectangular windows recessed within tall round arches, and a shallow attic...."
• History 4th para, states: "the old warehouse has been converted from two storeys to seven."
• Images of England, ref 4, states: "5 storeys and attic; 8-window range".
  • So, Arnolfini might not have been using all the floors in the building, if so where they derelict?; or, it inserted extra floors and leases some of them out; or some other explanation.

OK, I have fixed that, I guess over-familiarity caused me to miss that. Hopefully all explained and cited now. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 5, Images of England, gives an "403 Forbidden error" message.

Appears to be a temporary server issue. I have linked an Internet Archive copy of the page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• project.ARNOLFINI seems a bit of an afterthought. The phrase "online experimental site" is used, suggesting a web site. Are the servers, based at the Arnolfini, the developers, etc? More explanation is needed.

Ok, fixed, also added in cited information about the education work. Hopefully the explanation is clearer now. It is fairly new so not much literature about it, except the site itself.–– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I suspect that most recent hits on the article might arise from the Sky thingy that caused a bit of disruption in the harbour side: its in there but is it worth adding it to the Lead?

I guess that you are right, although all the focus is now on the last debate. I have added a sentence in the lead. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm putting the review On Hold at this point. Pyrotec (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A interesting, well-referenced, illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)