Talk:Grafton Street/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 05:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hoping to get to this later today! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 05:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the fascinating read! This is my first time reviewing a GAN about a street so please bear with me. Anyways, I have placed this nomination on hold for one week and left some comments below. Please ping me once you have addressed my concerns so that I can know when to reevaluate. (emphasis on ping because recently people have been forgetting to do that ):<). Thanks! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 19:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: I think most of the issues have been addressed one way or another; possibly the only other things that could be done is to mine a few more specifics from book sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Should not be too big a deal :) All of the other issues have been addressed. As for the book sources, it would be great to expand this article with them—but GAs are not as strict as FAs and the article is certainly of highly proficient quality nonetheless. As for the Cultural references I would remove the entries for The Script, Bagatelle and Noel Purcell as they seem quite trivial. I trust you to make these minor alterations, so I am now pleased to pass this article for GA status per the changes already implemented. Nice work, and congrats! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 06:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Earwig says good to go. No concerns from me either.

Files

All images relevant, of acceptable quality and copyright-free:

• File:Grafton St, Dublin.jpg: CC-BY-SA 3.0, uploaded to Commons by photographer;
• File:79 Grafton Street... (8248610379).jpg: valid public domain rationale;
• File:NLI Fusiliers Arch Grafton Street.jpg: valid public domain rationale per National Library of Ireland;
• File:Teletubby Buskers.jpg: CC-BY-SA 2.0;
• File:Grafton Street Disney Store.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0, uploaded to Commons by photographer (Ritchie333, in fact—thanks!).

Prose

• The first paragraph of the lead uses four parentheses which is quite a lot. Recommend replacing the ones of "the other being Henry Street" with a single em dash at the beginning. Y
• "connecting College Green to St Stephen's Green, which" – wikilink both places as first mentions in the body. Y
• "Liffey near O'Connell Bridge." – wikilink these and unlink their mentions in "(now O'Connell Bridge) in 1758, spanning the River Liffey" Y
• Can 19th century be expanded upon at all? It sounds like quite an eventful period. - to explore - reqs book work
• "By 1849 several" – missing a comma? Y
• "on the other side of the city" – replace with the area's direction instead (to the north/south etc.) Y
• "As part of a wider set of proposals to rename a number of Dublin streets in 1921" – is any more information available on this? - to explore, there was a period of "new nationhood" renaming, will see what is readily in good sources Y - handled by Smirkybec
• "Grafton Street in premises above two shops." – does the source say if these were residential?

It was an employment agency (ie: commercial), I've clarified this Y

• "had become congested, with the street full of cars and buses," – redundant; this is what congestion means. Y Also:
• Wikilink pedestrianisation. Y
• "walls of Trinity College," – wikilink Trinity College. Y
• "early 1900s, and 1990s" – its 1990s redevelopment is not mentioned anywhere in History? - will look into this - book and/or newspaper checks

The 1990s activity is cited to Casey 2005 p. 519, specific redevelopments are mentioned in the individual houses. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• "All this activity in all resulted" – sounds jaded, recommend "Altogether, this activity resulted" Y
• "place to meet and socialise." – recommend "place to convene and socialise" - would "gather" be OK instead of "convene"? Y
• "Following a campaign, the café on Grafton Street, which had closed, was reopened." – the previous sentence says it was only at risk of closing? - will clarify in papers (it did close, this may be a matter of what's in particular sources)
• The sentence starting "The northern end of the street was" – is a bit long. Could it be split into two sentences? Y
• On the list of Grafton Street buskers, some of the people's descriptions start with a capital whilst others do not. I think either way is acceptable, but this should be consistent. Y

Refs

Does not pass spotcheck. No concerns with refs 2, 10, 26, 32, 45, 51, 53 or 60. But:
For ref 13 I could not confirm "somewhat restoring Grafton Street's reputation," Y and for ref 37 I saw no mention of the price being "€60 if using amplification". Y - additional cite added, so all refs > #37 are renumbered +1

I didn't think personally that it was original research to say that Grafton Street has got better since the late 19th century, though the sources in question don't explicitly mention this, aside from Casey's account of multiple redevelopments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Also:

• Ref 13 is missing the author's name—I believe it is Donal Fallon. Y
• Ref 16 has no publication name. Y
• Ref 17 appears to be a dead link. Y (replaced)
• Ref 18 needs more info. Y
• Is a better publication name available for ref 35? Y - clarified as far as possible
• Same concern as above for refs 41–42. Y
• Refs 43–49, 51 have both the URLs and publication names. The URLs should be removed for consistency. Y I think I sorted all inconsistencies, but between us, we will check again
• Refs 52–58 could probably be expanded with some more info. Y

Other

Short description, infobox, navs, See also, other templates and cats good.

• In External links, use template:Official website. Y

Smirkybec, SeoR - just to let you know this review is now underway in case you can get to issues before I do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and first fixes done, I trust to a level you'd agree with, but on a few points we need to explore and add or reply... SeoR (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: the Cultural references section could probably be tightened per Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

What does "tightened" mean in this context? If you think the "Cultural references" section contains too many indiscriminate entries, which ones could go? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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.