Talk:British Engineerium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Starting read through.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Built in the 1860s. Infobox says completed in 1866, perhaps you should be more precise

→ Changed to "in 1866".

"At its greatest extent, the complex consisted of two boiler houses with condensing engines, a chimney, coal cellars, workshop, cooling pond, leat and underground reservoir" What period was it at its greatest extent?

→ I've added "between 1884 and 1952" (1884 = construction of cooling pond; 1952 = one engine removed from service.)

Should Brighton Water Department and Brighton Water Corporation be wikilinked?

→ I'm not convinced they are notable enough, as minor departments/committees of the local council.

"The Engineerium became nationally famous, and expertise developed by its employees and volunteers was exploited across the world:" Was it genuinely so famous that it was a household name throughout the United Kingdom?

→ I would argue that it was (at least in the industrial history sphere), but it's not really attributable so I have removed it.

Shouldn't the complex (originally named the Brighton and Hove Engineerium before taking its present name in 1981) be mentioned much earlier, right at the beginning?

→ OK – moved to the first sentence.

"For many years, the larger and indigenous exhibits were fully operational and in steam at weekends" Perhaps the word steam should be replaced as it could be taken too literally, or was this intentional?

→ I don't think I added that sentence, but the phrase "in steam" is technically correct.

I would rather see an image of the whole complex in the infobox including the tower a bit like File:British Engineerium Boiler House and Engine Rooms (from Rear).jpg only better quality and less dark. I looked at in on google street maps and think a wider image like that would be more appropriate and recognizable.

History

Should Brighton, Hove and Preston Waterworks Company and Brighton Corporation be wikilinked?

→ Brighton, Hove and Preston Waterworks Company: unsure. There's not a lot of published info about them. Brighton Corporation: yes, but to Brighton and Hove City Council (its present incarnation). I'll have to write that one day!

Wikilink Goldstone Bottom? Also shouldn't the fact it was initially called Goldstone Pumping Station be mentioned at the beginning of the intro. All former names should be mentioned there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

→ G. Bottom: not notable enough on its own, as a minor landscape feature in the city; but if I ever write Topography of Brighton and Hove (which I may do) then I will link it there. G.P. Station: now mentioned in the last para of the lead.

"truly monumental chimney" looks like POV or OR unless you state described by ... as a "truly monumental chimney"

→ Now changed to described by one historian as "truly monumental", which should be OK as the ref is immediately afterwards.

"A network of arched tunnels was built " should be were not was.

→ Changed.

Wikilink Henry Abbey?

→ I'm not sure he meets the notability criteria; he was Mayor for one year, and did not have prominence outside B&H. (Admittedly, the road on which his house still stands was named after him.)

That's OK. Sorry for being over picky on wiki links but we have some surprising articles on some of them but others were not linked. I did wonder if they were notable, you would know better than anybody else here so I trust your judgement on that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In October 2010, it was opened for a day ", can you be more precise?

→ Now 10 October 2010, but would that need a ref?

Please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would move the lower image on exhibit to the left side of the exhibit section.

→ Do you mean the fire engine?

Yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

"The Engineerium has been described as an "unusually fine asset" for Brighton and Hove[21] and "a splendid example of Victorian industrial engineering" " -needs attribution again

→ Done.

Exhibtitions

Wikilink Crepelle & Grand.

→ Done.

I await for these issues to be addressed before proceeding with the formal checklist.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this initial review. I have addressed points as above; all comments relate to this timestamp: Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

This now, in my judgment, a respectable GA quality article which meets all of the GA criteria. I'm not sure it is ready for FA yet, I do wonder if there are perhaps more sources available either in local library archives which provide valuable information on its function in earlier times or coverage in more books but you've used some ideal books to help you write this which is more than enough for GA. Good job, I'm promoting this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]