Talk:Camberwell Public Baths/GA1

The following discussion 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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lead is too short and does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD. Not done

Stray sentences should be consolidated into paragraphs and the list in the History section should be converted into prose. Not done

The History section is rather bitty, does not provide a full history between the opening and the present. Not well organised, chopping backwards and forwards. Not done

The modern renovation section appear to contain copyright violation.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Sources appear OK, but note what has been said about copyvios above.

~~I have placed citation needed tags where there are uncited paragraphs.~~ Done
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
As noted above the history section in particular is rather disorganised, lists need converting to prose, a little more on the 20th century is needed. Not done

Some details of the construction, size, etc. are needed. Not done
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Licensed and captioned.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Some serious issues here, the article is currently a long way from GA quality. On Hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Please check against the WP:GACR before nominating again. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as "not listed", as per notes below. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note from reviewer's talk page

Fæ left a note on my talk page. They have now objected to it being included in this review, obviously not having read the statement in the edit pane: "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." However in order to satisfy their request, I am now just linking to their note which you can read in full at User talk:Jezhotwells#Camberwell Baths.

From the local authority website:

On 31 March 2009 Southwark Council was awarded funding of £1.45 million to go towards improving the centre. This initial funding, together with over £2m from Southwark Council's Investing in Leisure programme, £576,000 from the Youth Capital Fund and further funding from various other grants means that a total £4.7 million investment will provide even more improvement than first envisaged at the centre.

The additional funding has allowed the council to proceed with the expansion and refurbishment of the gym facilities and dry-side changing rooms, structural improvements to ensure the ongoing use of the sports hall and the upgrade of Warwick Hall.

This means the centre will be reopened in two stages. The swimming pools and changing rooms; cafe and the remodelled front entrance will open in February 2011. This will be followed by the gym, dry-side changing rooms, Warwick Hall and Youth facilities later in the year.

# Reception upgrade: The reception area and entrance foyer have been renovated to ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act guidelines and in addition the centre has introduced a hearing induction loop and visual impairment amendments. The entrance area features an open access café with servery and seating area. # Modification to the pool: A new boom has been built to separate the main and teaching pools. The boom incorporates stepped access which will improve access to the pools for the elderly, young children and disabled users. A new pool-side hoist has been installed to assist people with disabilities to access the pools. # Structural and plant upgrades: The pool hall, corridor, windows and roof have been refurbished ensuring the surrounding areas of the pool-side remain energy efficient. Upgrades to the pool plant (the machines that control the swimming pool environment) have been undertaken to ensure the long term future of the baths. # Mechanical and electrical upgrades: A new electricity supply with latest energy-saving lighting has been installed to help improve energy efficiency. New air handling and heat recovery units will make using the facility a more pleasurable experience for customers. # Changing rooms: Male and female changing rooms will be refurbished to Sport England standards. In addition, a new family changing area and two disabled changing rooms with toilets will be included alongside the pool to encourage greater participation by disabled users and families with young

From the article:

On 31 March 2009 Southwark Council received funding of £1.45 million for improving the centre with the total refurbishment budget from all sources amounting to £4.7 million. Additional funding came from Southwark's Investing in Leisure programme at over £2 million and in May 2009 the Youth Capital Fund allocated £576,000 for a council-operated youth facility within the site. The building was closed from Wednesday 25 November 2009.[8]

Camberwell Leisure Centre announced a schedule to re-open the pool and learner pool from 28 February 2011 with an opening event in Artichoke Place on Saturday 12 March 2011. The new renovations include entrance foyer, reception and social area/café, all are now designed for wheelchair access.[3]

The completed refurbishments include:

* Reception and entrance foyer have been renovated to ensure compliance with the disability guidelines including a hearing induction loop and visual impairment amendments. There is a new open access café. * A new boom separates the main and teaching pools. A pool-side hoist has been installed for disabilities to access. The pool has a UV filter which reduces the need for chlorine and improves water conditions. * Energy efficiency upgrades include the pool hall, corridor, windows and roof being refurbished, installation of a new electricity supply and energy-saving lighting and there are new air handling and heat recovery units. * The changing rooms have been refurbished to Sport England standards. A family changing area and two disabled changing rooms with toilets are included alongside the pool to encourage participation by disabled users and families with young children.

The second phase of planned renovations including the gym, dry-side changing rooms, Warwick Hall and youth facilities are to open later in 2011.[8]

Wikipedia's copyright policy is crystal clear. Although the text is not now a direct cut and paste job, it is a very close paraphrase. If you are being sent material from Southwark Council then you need to follow the established procedures to ensure that this material is licensed under an appropriate GFDL license, and that the copyright owner (Southwark Council) is fully aware of this. Also, I note that you appear to be acting as an agent of Southwark Council, so you need to understand our conflict of interest policy. I think these policy issues mean that this nomination can not proceed any further, at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC) (amended at Fæ's request. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for explaining the situation.

The text is paraphrased in parts and I am happy to continue improving it (though it may take me 24 hours to get around to it). Taking the first sentence, however, of "On 31 March 2009 Southwark Council was awarded funding of £1.45 million to go towards improving the centre." and comparing it to "On 31 March 2009 Southwark Council received funding of £1.45 million for improving the centre with the total refurbishment budget from all sources amounting to £4.7 million." I would consider there to be some similarity but could you explain why this fails the guideline and what you would expect to see considering that the only changes could be trivial considering the numbers themselves cannot be changed?

I am not an "agent" of Southwark Council, being in correspondence with an organization in order to help with updates to factual information, getting permission for photographs and being invited to official public opening events as someone interested in local history and known to be a volunteer Wikipedian is not normally considered a COI problem. As an OTRS agent I have not approved any materials as I have been in direct correspondence outside of OTRS and wanted to avoid any claim of not meeting the principles of WP:UNINVOLVED. If you feel I might be compromised and are not moved to assume good faith, feel free to raise the matter for independent review at WP:COIN and I would be happy to share my entire email correspondence with a suitable bureaucrat if necessary.

I have no intention of pursuing a copyright release of the Council's website information, this invariably makes the article appear promotional even when there is no commercial interest.

As for the GA, I have already stated on my talk page that your negative review discouraged me from taking it further and as a result I have taken not replied to any of the points raised. The GA process is intended to help editors with article improvement, in this instance compared to other GA reviews I have been involved with (as requester and reviewer) I have found it to be critical rather than helpful. Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2011 (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.

As you have chosen to archive this GA rather than waiting for my changes proposed above in the next 24 hours, I can only assume that your suggestions that I have possible COI are now not to be followed up and that you are also choosing to ignore my request for clarification. I hope that in any future GA reviews your conduct will be in a more civil tone than this one has followed. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]