Talk:Back-to-back house/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 12:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Detailed comments

Lead

"Back-to-backs share party walls on three of their four sides ...". I don't understand this, as neither the front nor back walls are party walls.

The houses do share rear walls with the property behind, in the same way as they share side walls. Only the front is "exposed" so to speak. Given a party wall is a wall shared by multiple properties, this is correct. Some houses have since been "knocked through" (and were previously back-to-back), but can no longer been designated that, so they don't apply. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the plan again I see what you mean. Eric Corbett 14:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The final paragraph isn't at all clear. Why are Leeds and Bradford lumped together, and Birmingham and Liverpool?

Perhaps because Leeds and Bradford are the areas where they still exist as estates, whilst Birmingham and Liverpool have sole examples/museum attractions only? Other cities it would seem have removed all stock. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The Birmingham Back to Backs is now operated as a historic house museum by the National Trust; the Museum of Liverpool manages the other." The other what? Is this suggesting that only two museums are maintaining displays of back-to-back housing, Birmingham and Liverpool? If so, what about the Bradford Industrial Museum?

Fair point - I have changed the wording a bit. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is "... many [back-to-back houses] remain in Leeds and Bradford. Birmingham and Liverpool consistent with the opening sentence of the Contemporary usage section: "Leeds and its surrounding region is the only area where back-to-back houses still exist in large numbers."

Sounds right to me? The lead says that many remain in Leeds and Bradford (which is true) and the contemporary usage section clarifies that further by saying those areas are the only region where they exist "in large numbers". "In large numbers" and "many remain" is consistent, right? The sentence starting "Birmingham and Liverpool.." is a difference sentence referring to something different. Can you be clear if that's what you meant? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'd misread that full stop for a comma, hence my confusion. Eric Corbett 14:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Description

"Built low quality and for high density ...". Something wrong there.

Can you elaborate? The period mentioned relates to houses that were built to a sub-standard level of quality (particularly when compared to the bye-law houses) and were intended to "pack" as many people/families as possible into the land available. Which part was concerning in particular? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence as it stands doesn't make sense – "Built low quality"? Better would be something like "These high-density low-quality houses were built for ...".

I have restructured the sentence. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early houses

"In the oldest parts of Birmingham, early back-to-back houses were known for being associated with filth, neglection, poor ventilation and pools of stagnant water ...". Neglection is an archaic word that isn't even used by the 1844 source being cited.

No issue to remove, as it neither adds nor takes anything away from the sentence. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19th century

"... often tightly packed together into the smallest space permitting." Permitting what? Should this be "permitted", "allowed", "possible" ...?

Word has been amended. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In Leeds, the Medical Officer for Health sought to abolish their construction from around 1880, though was unsuccessful as the Leeds Improvement Act of 1866 required new "bye-law" houses could be built to a set of regulations ..." This seems to be a poorly written non sequitor. What is it really trying to say?

I have restructured the sentence. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Figures from 1899 suggested that 72 per cent of all houses constructed annually in that city were back-to-back, identical to 15 years prior, and would not decrease until 1914." Don't the figures still suggest that? And the figures didn't predict anything about 1914, that was a later observation.

I have split the sentence, but not sure what you mean by the first part. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that whatever they suggested in 1899 they must still suggest. Fixed it myself. Eric Corbett 00:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant change came with the introduction of the bye-law house to comply with the Public Health Act 1875." This seems a little inconsistent, as new bye-law houses were described in the previous paragraph as being introduced in Leeds in 1866. Shouldn't it be "byelaw houses" anyway?

The book source did note the 1866 act changes to housing, but it said "byelaw" (I assume to infer it was it's own variation of what was later to come officially), so to avoid confusion, I have just removed byelaw. For the other part, I have changed to use the actual article title. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The purpose of the bye-law was to prevent the construction of back-to-back houses ..." Which bye-law?

Clarified this is the byelaw terraced house. Noted it was an expectation rather than a requirement, seeing as some back-to-backs that exist today were seemingly built to post-regulation standards. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Between the wars

"... the local council had spent about £1 million (equivalent to £95,662,602 in 2016)..." That's a ridiculously and misleadingly precise conversion. Should be £95.7 million. You should also show what the basis for that conversion calculation is; using the {{inflation-fn}} template is a convenient way to do that.

Rounded down and added inflation-fn template. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed your conversion. Eric Corbett 10:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After the Second World War

The quotation from Wheeldon is way too long, occupying more than half of this section and adding very little.

I have trimmed the quote down to a more acceptable size. Although added by Carbon Caryatid after my initial article buildup, I did feel it added a different perspective to the message being relayed to the reader. None the less, I have removed elements that perhaps do not add much value. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation as museums

I'm not at all keen on your sandwiched images, particularly as the left-aligned one appears directly below a section header, thus misaligning the body of the text.

Perhaps a little pedantic? :) I have swapped the images and made the smaller one locate before the start of the second paragraph. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd like someone else to finish off the review if you think I'm being too pedantic? Eric Corbett 21:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tongue-in-cheek comment chap. I changed the image given you felt it was an issue.. I just meant my comment in relation to GA criteria. It wasn't a gripe at all :) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the GA criteria are a minimum standard that must be reached, not a ceiling. Having said that, I would not have failed this article, or any other, simply because it did not conform to best practice if that was outside the scope of the GA criteria. In this particular case though, one might argue that the image placement failed the GA layout requirement. Eric Corbett 10:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, I amended the image placement at the time of confirming the action here. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General comments I am hopeful the quality of the article is now befitting that of GA quality in your opinion. It'll be interesting to consider how much additional work is required to bring it up to FA standard, given the wealth of information (historic and contemporary) there is on the subject matter. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is, and I've now listed this article as a GA accordingly. If you're considering taking this on to FAC, then I think you'll be glad that I was so "pedantic". Congratulations anyway. Eric Corbett 12:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.