Talk:Charles Holden/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: two found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Adams' practice specialised in the design of hospitals and a number of Holden's early designs were for hospitals. A little cumbersome, can this be rephrased to avoid the repetition of "hospitals". Y

   Done--DavidCane (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   At second floor level a controversial series of 7-foot (2.1 m) tall sculptures representing the development of science and the ages of man were carved by Jacob Epstein. This reads as if Epstein carved the sculptures in situ, which seems unusual. I think it would be good to use the {{convert}} template to give both metric and imperial units, but this is not a good article criterion. Y

   I have rephrased, although it is probable that Epstein did at least do part of the carving in situation as the blocks of stone into which they are carved form part of the façade (one of the reasons that they could not be removed when the Rhodesian government decided to get rid of them). It is known that Epstein did some of the carving of the Night and Day statues at 55 Broadway in-situ.

   The convert template is used.--DavidCane (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry I missed that!

   Consistency we have both World War I and First World War in the article. Likewise World War II and Second World War. Y

   Done.--DavidCane (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   Consolidate the last two sentences of the section Awards and recognition. Y

   Done.--DavidCane (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Could we have "|format=Subscription required" added to the journal articles and on-line reference works that require individual or institutional subscription. Y

   Done.--DavidCane (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   References check out, I assume good faith for off-lines sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough and focussed

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   Images licensed, tagged and captioned. I note that there may be some dispute over File:Charles Holden by Benjamin Nelson.jpg, but also that as long as it is still on Commons, it is probably OK>

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for addressing those things so quicly, i am happy to pass this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk)