Talk:Old Kent Road/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Boson (talk · contribs) 22:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Good work, and interesting, but I think a few things need fixing.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A few issues with readability, grammar, and spelling.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Copyright issue with the Monopoly board. The problem is with the underlying Commons image which is incorrectly tagged (clear copyright notice on the image itself).

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: The issues raised have been fixed in the course of the review.

Details/discussion

I'm still checking sources and prose, but it may take a while. --Boson (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources/Verification/Attribution

• I couldn't confirm the existence of "Shornecliff Road". Should probably read "Shorncliffe Road". [fixed]
• Since Canterbury Tales is fiction, the wording may need to be changed to avoid giving Chaucer as the source for a statement of fact (body and intro). [fixed]

"It was a recognised route for pilgrims in the Middle Ages as documented in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales".

"Pilgrims documented in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales travelled along this route from London and Southwark on their way to Canterbury."

• I couldn't find where the cited source states that specifically Londoners call it the Old Kent Road, though the source itself uses the definite article (as do I, but I would, of course). [fixed]

I've changed it, just to say that the "the" is optionally used. Trying to find a source for the specific Londoners claim seems to be borderline impossible! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Any qualification tends to imply that Old Kent Road without the is more usual. I would, personally, have surmised that it is "usually" (almost always) referred to as "the Old Kent Road" in speech and running text. Google searches for "in the Old Kent Road" and "in Old Kent Road" (see also Google Books ngram viewer) confirm that use with the definite article is much more common, but we can't really use that. I wonder where the bit about "Londoners" came from. I suppose it could be that "strangers" do not know the usual name, in the same way that an American might not know the usual pronunciation of "Featherstonehaugh", "Cholmondeley", or "Balham" ", and a Brit might not know the correct pronunciation of "Arkansas", "Des Moines", or "St. Louis". I found this source that actually discusses the issue (as an exception to the normal rule for "other locative names consisting of proper noun + common noun descriptor"):

" [b]The can exceptionally occur with Road in the names of some urban thoroughfares: (the) Edgware Road, (the) Old Kent Road [but only: Oxford Street, Fifth Avenue]" [section 5.69, Note b, page 294 of Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey; Svartvik, Jan (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman. ISBN 978-0-582-51734-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) ]

--Boson (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The specific bit about "Londoners usually call it the Old Kent Road" was added way back in May 2004, at a time when this article in its current state with half the sourcing would pass FAC and you could pass RfA on ten !votes with comments like "Support, nice guy". How times change..... anyway, I think the best option is to say that "on the ground" signage and on maps don't use "the", but many sources do, and it's not original research to not list them! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. --Boson (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• I couldn't confirm the Pugh source (Footnote 14) for the Rolls properties along the Old Kent Road, or rather I found the information on page 15 (not page 31) in the book with the right title but with isbn 978-1-840-46151-0. I couldn't find the ISBN given (different edition, ISBN changed, typo?) [fixed]

I think I'm going to have to confess to guesswork here. Having had a look through where I got the citation, it seems it's a result of this search which says "The Rolls family fortune had been founded by this great, great grandfather John (1735-1801), a dairy farmer who had bought freeholds and leaseholds on both side of the Old Kent Road". However, an existing British History Online source can verify all of this anyway, so I've trimmed to down to the facts stated in the source and left it at that. There's a bit of a peacockery in the prose around this area too; I've copyedited that out as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I couldn't confirm the English Heritage source (Footnote 16) for the "social purposes" regarding the Rolls properties along the Old Kent Road. [my mistake or fixed]

The specific phrases I'm looking at in the source are "Much of the land then belonged to the Rolls family" and then "The late C19 saw the building of large-scale social housing south of the goods yard" plus everything on the page is referring to a specific section of road ("Page's Walk to Humphrey Street") Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Industrial development: I couldn't confirm the tanneries and soap processing plant (wrong page number or source?) [fixed]

I changed the source to one which mentions a tannery, though it's not great because it says "A man in London who had a tannery had lived in the Old Kent road". We presume the tannery was where he lived but it doesn't confirm it exactly does it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find any better source online but, having looked at the history, I suspect that the statement might have originally been covered by the citation "Moore, 2003, page 311" (which I don't have) but the Heritage citation got added in the middle. Can you confirm that, Ritchie333? --Boson (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That looks like what happened. Tim Moore's "Do Not Pass Go" says, at the top of page 311, "Tanneries attracted outworkers who scoured the streets harvesting a natural astringent required in the production process: dog crap. There was a fat-rendering soap plant." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• I couldn't confirm the "construction of the tramway" (wrong page number?) [my mistake / fixed]

Probably, but search doesn't seem to be working on the English Heritage PDF. I've dropped a contemporary source from the Railway News that verifies its 1871 opening. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I really like the 20,000 horse brandishing their swords; this should probably be attributed to John Evelyn. [fixed]

Done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Because English Heritage is given as the publisher, not the author, it is difficult for the reader to follow the reference from the footnote to the list of sources. (optional)

Sorry, I'm confused by what you mean. As far as I can tell, if you click on any of the "English Heritage 2009" links in the prose, they jump to the report and highlight the link to it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah! Sorry! I now see that it is highlighted. This is probably a problem on my screen, where the highlighting is barely visible. Normally, this is not a problem because you can easily see the author. I will have to look at my colour settings. --Boson (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick holding reply, I will get to these issues ASAP as soon as I have time (unless @Dr. Blofeld: wants to have a go) - part of the problem with this article is that the article as I found it was more or less completely unsourced (example) and my general "go to" source for all things London, The London Encyclopaedia devotes about three sentences to it, so retrospectively sourcing everything had to be cribbed from here, there and everywhere based on whatever I could find. Some things I think should be removed as they were originally added as unsourced and the retrospective sourcing only filled in the majority of claims, not all of it. Always pays to get a second pair of eyes to check through these things carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Got a headache :-( I need a lie down, I'll try to look at this later if my head clears!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Will try to help shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Meaning unclear or difficult for some readers to interpret

• "It has been [rather than 'was'] part of Watling Street" verges on the ungrammatical if there is no list of things it has ever been. [fixed]
• "It is the first and equal cheapest property" is unclear if you don't know what it means beforehand. [fixed]
• Can a road contain fields and windmills? [fixed]

Changed to "surrounded by" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Can bodies be left "in gibbets" (rather than "hanging from gibbets")? [fixed]
• The source and the meaning of the following sentence is unclear:

As an accomplice of William de la Pole, 1st Duke of Suffolk, Sir James Fiennes, 1st Baron Saye and Sele, arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London, was taken by a mob during the rebellion of Jack Cade at the Standard in Cheapside, then to St Thomas-a-Watering, where he was hung, drawn and quartered for his part in de la Pole's rebellion.

It's difficult to work out who did what to whom, where, and in what order. [fixed]

More to the point, according to Ranulph Fiennes, James Fiennes was executed by Jack Cade in 1451 at London Bridge, not anywhere on Old Kent Road. I've taken this out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "quarted" should probably read "quartered"? [fixed]
• " There is a statue of him on the Livesey Museum for Children". I think that should have been "in", but it seems the museum no longer exists, so that probably needs removing or changing. [fixed]

Mea culpa on that one, clearly the then contemporary closure of the museum didn't make it into the 2008 London Encyclopedia. I've documented the closure and what the building is now used for. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The London City Fire Brigade had its 'Thomas Street' fire station placed at the corner site." Which corner site? [fixed]

I've changed this to the opening year, which has been cited Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• " have allowed to be developed". Something wrong there. I presume "have been allowed ...". [fixed]

Changed to "have been developed" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Most prominently was those held by ..." Something went wrong there. [fixed]

This text doesn't seem to be in the article anymore Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I suspect that many readers don't know what vestry boundaries are (as opposed to Parish boundaries). (optional) [fixed]

I've trimmed this. As the only citation is a contemporary OS map, the prose should only document what you can see on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• The sentence ending "...which were designed by their Surveyor Michael Searles in 1788." is difficult to understand. I don't think a comma before "which" would be enoughto fix it. (optional?) [fixed]

I've trimmed this a bit Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• A link to Ammonite Order and capital (architecture) might make the architectural reference easier to understand. (optional) [fixed]
• "...the road was entirely built up of high density housing" sounds odd. (optional) [fixed]

I've removed "of high density housing". The main emphasis here is to show that by 1845 the road was urban as opposed to rural. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The Crown let out many long-leases ...".Can you let out leases? (optional?) [fixed]

No, I'd change it to "properties" but I can't see the word "lease" in the prose anywhere now :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think some additional copy-editing (punctuation etc.) might be helpful. --Boson (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Monopoly board

"The problem is with the underlying Commons image which is incorrectly tagged (clear copyright notice on the image itself)." Hmmm, I think that depends on which copyright law you look at! My understanding is that a work produced as a "work for hire" (which this is) extends for year of first publication + 70 years, which means under British copyright law it became PD in the UK on 1 January 2008. (I've been personally advised on this rule for non-OS maps by the British Library and the National Library of Scotland when I wrote SABRE Maps). In the US, though, copyright lasts for year of publication + 95 years, which means it hasn't expired there, though the British board was never published in the US.

All of that put to one side, the image crop used in this article is of some text and a few boxes, which I do not believe meets the threshold of originality to qualify as copyright. @We hope: may be able to give a more definitive answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested to see what an expert says. I assume from the copyright notice that it is the 1961 edition, but I don't know if, for instance the picture of the train at Kings Cross Station had changed since 1946 or 1935 (the two other dates on the copyright notice). I would have guessed that the picture of the train, the GO field, the order of the fields, and the assigned colours would be sufficient to pass the threshold of "at least some minimal degree of creativity". I would be happier arguing for fair use with a low-res image. --Boson (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about fair-use myself, because I could make the argument that if it's just text and a few lines, why don't we just create an svg in Inkscape instead? Indeed, we already have {{Monopoly board layout}} that seems to do just that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the safest way to go would be as you said, Richie--to create an image. I see that the original photo of the entire board is at Commons DR since 9 September and that the photo itself came from Flickr. File:Monopoly.jpg Would also think that if the board was in the PD, we wouldn't need to have the templates to create boards as we do; the templates don't have the "Go" text on them as the original boards do, so it would seem that this text might be considered unique re: the type and the way it's positioned. There are a lot more items pictured on the Commons photo that might mean trouble--the deeds, the money and so on, than in the slice of the board you have here. The Commons photo has copyright notices printed on it from 1935, 1946 and 1961 to Parker Brothers (just enlarge the photo to see them in the middle of the board). Safest thing would seem to be a little "do it yourself" work. :-) We hope (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have converted the Monopoly board to text - have a look! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Great! I've now passed on copyright. --Boson (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)