Talk:Edward Hollamby/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 19:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this one within 7 days. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

• wl Red House
  • I'm not sure if this is the appropriate move, given that this is already linked to in the opening paragraph of the lede. But I am open to being over-ruled on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede

• "In 1952 Hollamby and his family moved into the Red House, embarking on projects to renovate and restore it and being involved in the foundation of the William Morris Society." - The second half of the sentence, starting with 'being involved ...', doesn't sound right. Maybe change 'being' to becoming', or split into two sentence and reword the second one.
  • Agreed, and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• "In 1952" - add comma
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• "The Guardian described Hollamby as "very much an architect of the 20th century, a public servant who believed not just in high quality architecture but in the existence and nurturing of the public realm, of public architecture and civic design."" - The newspaper quote in the lede would be a nice "summary" of a 'Style and legacy' section. As it is, it's a stand-alone statement about style and legacy, unrepeated in the body of the article. I recommend creating a 'Style' or 'Legacy' or 'Style and legacy' section.
  • You make a fair point, but I worry that (at present) there is insufficient published information on Hollamby's legacy to create a whole "Style and legacy" section on its own. Thus, any such section would simply contain The Guardian quote and that would be it. For this reason, I recommend leaving things as they are for now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Early life

• First 3 sentences each have the same inline citation, Harwood 2011. I think retaining it at the end of sentence 3 and omitting it for sentence1 and sentence2 would be sufficient.
  • If it's okay, I would rather that those two references stay put, because I have encountered editors in the past who will argue that doing to leaves those sentences effectly "unreferenced", and I wish to avoid that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ok --Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• "From there, he gained a higher education at the nearby Hammersmith School of Arts and Crafts during the 1930s, there training in architecture." - Repetition of there/there in the same sentence could be reworded.
  • Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• "nineteenth century" in this section; "20th century" in the lede - Recommend switching to "19th century".
  • Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• "At the same time" - add a comma
  • Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• "On 18 May 1941" - add a comma
• "... was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) - Can you please add a citation?
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Architectural career

• "in January 1963" - add a comma
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• " in the early 1980s" - add a comma
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• In paragraph3, two sentences in a row start with "Here...". - Can you reword one of them?
  • Reworded. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Paragraph3 contains 6 sentences, each with an inline citation. Can you condense?
  • I'm not really sure that condensing the prose would work here, particularly given that a variety of different sources are being cited in this paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I meant to say, "can you condense the amount of inline citations", but you've addressed this point (wanting to retain the inline citations) elsewhere in the review, and I understand your view, so ok to leave as is. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Red House

• Paragraph2 and paragraph3 - Every sentence has an inline citation and it seems to be too much.
  • Hmm. I don't really agree; I find that each of these citations are necessary in a case like this. But I appreciate that I am one of those Wikipedia editors who tend to make quite heavy use of citations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• "His wife Mary" - I got confused as to whose wife, so suggest changing this to "Tom's wife Mary".
  • Agreed, although it should be "Toms' wife Mary", which I have changed it too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• "Deciding to share the property between themselves, they were only able to afford a mortgage with the aid of a loan from Toms' father-in-law; he only agreed to provide the loan if the house was owned in Toms' name, and thus the Hollambys became Toms' tenants." - The use of only/only in the same sentence is a bit clunky; suggest rewording.
  • I've removed the first instance of "only" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• "In 1954, a third architect, David Gregory Jones, moving in to the two rooms adjoining the downstairs gallery." - Change 'moving' to 'moved'.
  • Very good point! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• "In 1957" - add comma
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• "In 1960" - add comma
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• "In 1998" - add comma
  • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• "After his retirement in 1985, Ted Hollamby decided to open the House up to visitors" - Either refer to it as 'Red House' here, or change 'House' to 'house'. 'Ted' is unnecessary.
  • Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• The last paragraph contains 3 sentences cited to ref18 (Youngs, 2011, p. 58). Perhaps

Sources

• Because it's a relatively short list, I suggest bullets and no columns, but you don't need to act on this if you disagree.
  • If it's okay, I'd rather leave things as they are; particularly given that the list might grow in time as new publications are brought out exaining Hollamby and his place in British modernist architecture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Authority control

• Add VIAF and/or other Authority control.
  • I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what these are. 16:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• No worries, I've added it to the article. Here's some info on Authority control and the link to VIAF. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: Thank you for your efforts thus far. I've reviewed the article and it's in nice shape. Please ping me when you'd like me to take another look at it. I'll put it on hold for 7 days. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments @Rosiestep:; I have gone through and responded to most of them so far. Take a look and let me know what you think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your follow-up. I've added some replies. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   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:

Good job. Looks adequate for GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)