Talk:Old Chiswick/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Starting first read-through. More anon. Tim riley talk 20:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Preliminary digression, as one whose family home was in Keswick, Cumbria I take a dim view of other Cheese Farms muscling in, but yours, irritatingly, seems to have got in first. I shall try not to let this prejudice me.
- Thanks Tim! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]Nothing to frighten the horses, and certainly not worth formally putting the review on hold for.
- Lead
- "The street still floods on high spring tides" – this isn't mentioned in the body of the text, and according to WP:LEAD there didn't oughter be anything in the lead that isn't in the main text.
- Added to Geography, and cited.
- St Nicholas Church
- dates from 1882-4 – needs attention from the MoS point of view: full four-figure years and an en-dash rather than a hyphen.
- Format is now pukka.
- except for the surviving west tower which was built for William Bordall – could do with a comma after tower, to make the clause non-restrictive (i.e. descriptive rather than defining) otherwise there is the theoretical possibility that there are other surviving west towers that were built for someone else. Yes, I know, but it's as well to be as precise as possible,
- Added.
- and an exceptional one in the south chapel – who says it is exceptional?
- Historic England (aka English Heritage), the citation immediately following; they call it "a very fine monument". Allowing for the dry style of official listings, a jaundiced eye, and English understatement, that is a truly exceptional heap of praise. Repeated the ref just in case.
- Industry
- "drawdock" could do with a blue-link or explanation.
- Linked.
- Chiswick New Town
- north-westwards – but you don't hyphenate southeast, southwest and northeast earlier. Either is fine, but it would be as well to be consistent.
- Fixed.
Try as I may, that is all I can find to complain about. Over to you. Tim riley talk 20:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Tim, I'm glad you liked it! I shall expect an article on Old Keswick very soon! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- All fine now, and completely up to GA standard in every respect, in my view (and a thoroughly enjoyable read), so...
- Many thanks, Tim, I'm glad you liked it! I shall expect an article on Old Keswick very soon! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Overall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail: