Talk:Mayfair/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 15:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on the review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

This article was nominated for good article status. The review began on November 14, 2024. Below is an evaluation of the article, according to the six good article criteria.

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: In general, the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. There are a few comments below regarding capitalization, commas, and wording. Update: Looks good now.

Manual of Style compliance: It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References layout: It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.

Citations to reliable sources: The sources used are reliable sources. Have a question about encyclopedias and formatting the citations with retrieved dates and isbns, where applicable. Update: looks good, not really a criteria, thanks.

No original research: No evidence of original research. There's a comment regarding some paraphrasing. Update: This has been addressed.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: It addresses the main aspects of the topic.

Focused: It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Stable?

No edit wars, content disputes, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): The article is stable.

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?: Pass

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Yes.

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Yes.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

If you feel the final result of this review has been in error, you may request a reassessment. If the article failed to attain Good Article status after a full review, it may be easier to address any problems identified above, and simply renominate it.

See also

{{GAList}}

Comments

General comments: Overall, the article is very well-written, informative, and interesting. I particularly enjoyed the historical and archaeological information. Images are used appropriately throughout the article and are supported by content. I have a couple of things to run by you below, but overall it looks to be a very good job.

Lead

"It is one of the most expensive districts in London and the world." and " London's largest concentration of five star hotels," should have a citation, per WP:CITELEAD.

Done the first, for the second I have copyedited down to "modern hotels" which is less POV and what the London Encyclopedia actually says Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should family in "Grosvenor Family" be capitalized?

According to http://www.grosvenor.com/about-grosvenor/history/ - no Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I changed the capitalization in the lead - it's small cap everywhere else.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early history

"There has been speculation" is used twice in the first two sentences. Should one of them state - by archaeologists, historians, or name specific people or entities?

Fixed, also attributed specifically to Whitaker's Almanack (the Britannica source has been swapped for the London Encyclopedia - see below). I'd go into depth about Roman road alignments but you'd be bored to tears. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! You might be surprised - I actually became very interested in Roman roads after a trip to St Albans / Verulamium and the countryside.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well basically if you look at http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Watling_Street - there's a dogleg in section 1c which just looks wrong - if you iron it to be straight it crosses the Thames somewhere around Vauxhall Bridge, the City of London is just out of the way. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a link for "Civil War" for the non-English / non-UKers?

Yes, I think there should. I've also qualified with "17th century" (the source doesn't say that but I don't think it's original research to give the century the civil war happened in!) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May Fair

Perhaps nitpicky - is "inclusive" needed in "1 – 14 May inclusive"?

Probably not - removed Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grosvenor family and estates

Perhaps add a link to Indonesian embassy for Embassy of Indonesia, London? And, the later Saudia Arabian Embassy with Embassy of Saudi Arabia, London?

Didn't realise we had articles on them! Done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific occupation (city planner, city architect, other) that can be attributed to Thomas Barlowe - just as point of reference since there is no article that I could find on him?

According to the Survey of London he was an estate surveyor. I'm surprised there's not more on him, given that John Nash, who architected lots of Georgian London including Regent Street, is certainly notable enough to have an article Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should Court of St James be Court of St James's?

Linked Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great, thanks - for all of these.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels

Should royal families in "European Royal Families" be capitalized?

I would say not - our article on the British royal family isn't Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great - I made the change.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mayfair Hotel the same as The May Fair?

Good catch. It is, but it should be The May Fair Hotel, as a quick search for sources and the London Encyclopedia all put "Hotel" on the end. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commas

Is the comma needed in "The butcher Allen of Mayfair was based in Mount Street, and founded in 1830."? Same with the later, "The Handel House Museum is at No. 25 Brook Street in Mayfair, and opened in 2001." And, the later "The company's investment funds have been more successful than the FTSE All-Share Index, and the FTSE Small Cap Index." And, "In 2007, Cadbury Schweppes announced that it was moving to Uxbridge, London Borough of Hillingdon, to cut costs." — In other words, would this be a difference between English-English and American-English?

I'll address the other points when I'm next to my book sources, but the comma thing does appear to be a difference between UK and US English, as I recall it came up in Talk:Mersea Island/GA1 and Talk:Liverpool Street station/GA1 - however in those cases it's the other way round in as much as there have been complaints about not enough commas. In the first example, I could probably rewrite that as "The butcher Allen of Mayfair was founded in a shop on Mount Street in 1830" which side-steps the issue, the FTSE stuff I'd say the comma can probably come out, and for Cadbury I would leave the comma after "2007" and rewrite it to "In 2007, Cadbury Schewppes announced that it was moving to Uxbridge in order to cut costs", because whether or not Uxbridge is in a London borough or in the County of Middlesex can be contentious (seriously, ask Russell Grant about the Association of British Counties). How does that grab you? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That works.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing

There appear to be a couple of places where the content could be paraphrased a bit more, particularly the paragraph starting out "In 1725, Mayfair became part of the new parish..." See Earwig's detector feedback.

The detector report looks good now, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and citations

I generally wouldn't use an encyclopedia if I could find other sources, such as Encyclopædia Britannica. Do you, by chance, have another source for: 6. "Mayfair". Encyclopædia Britannica. Thoughts about The London Encyclopaedia?

Yes, I've swapped it for the London Encyclopedia - basically historians think somewhere around Hyde Park Corner might have been settled before London. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to have retrieved dates for the web citations and isbns for books, where they are available.

I've done what I can - Old and New London pre-dates ISBNs, while British History Online doesn't give the ISBNs for the Survey of London Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great for both of these.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made some minor edits that you may want to look at in history to ensure you agree. I was going to remove some of the duplicate links as well, but thought I'd mention it here first.

Yup, I noticed, no problems with those. What other duplicate links are they? I fear without some sort of tool it'll be like looking for a needle in a haystack :-( Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's "Highlight duplicate links" - I'm not quickly finding it in preferences. Do you see it on your left hand menu under "Tools". I don't remember if I had to do something to get it or not. I'll do it real quick.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! It's nice to bring to life the scene of some of my favorite period books and films!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: Cool, thanks for an informative review that ensures us the article is of the appropriate quality. I think I've addressed everything now (more or less), is there anything else? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me fix the dupe links and just double-check the most recent edits and we should be good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richie333 - Ok, I removed the duplicate links and I think we're good to go now - unless you have any questions about my changes to the capitalization based upon your responses or removal of duplicate links.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: Nope, I'm all good, as long as you are too. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am, too. By the way, info for the tool for "Highlight duplicate links" is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Tools. The Roman road map does look strange - it wants me to check it against a map of archaeological sites to see if there's any reason for that.

I have passed it and will take the rest of the steps.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for a good and informative review, I had to go back and check a few facts, which is always worthwhile. I have spent the odd afternoon randomly pottering around Mayfair after a walk in Hyde Park wondering how on earth anyone can afford to live there .... but then again, I think Belgravia is even more bonkers in terms of house prices these days. BTW the GA bot seems to have choked on this review and keeps awarding you review points every time somebody else puts a review on the queue - hopefully a close will make it sort itself out. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I am not sure how informative it was - you did such a great job that I just found minor items. It was the easiest review I've done. Funny about the counter.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my eye on improving this article for nearly two years (I think there's a note on the talk page to that effect), it's just taken the past week for me to sit down, switch out everything else and just knuckle down and get on with the job. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Ritchie333, the reason that LegoBot was confused was that CaroleHenson used a non-standard status, "pending", in the GA nominee template after she posted her review. Either the status should be left "onreview", or switched to "onhold" if the review is waiting for the nominator to deal with the the requests or suggestions made by the reviewer. (The only other valid value is "2ndopinion"; the field is blank prior to the review being opened.) No harm done, if CaroleHenson doesn't mind the inflated review count, since you dealt with the issues so quickly. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset and Ritchie - Sorry for the confusion! I will definitely remember that for next time (or at least that I need to make sure that I double-check that I have the right status).–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]