Jump to content

Talk:Oxford Street/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 00:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Ritchie, I'll be glad to take this one. I know nothing about this topic, so I should be a good test case to make sure your work makes sense to an ignorant Yank. Should have some comments up by Monday or Tuesday if not before. Thanks in advance for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Khazar and good to see you back to reviewing GAs. A shame this one sat in the queue for so long; I was originally hoping to get a DYK to time with the 2015 Christmas lights switch-on, but that's been and gone. Ah well, better late than never. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a shame. I'll try to have this one done before the 2016 switch-on at least... -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As usual I'm making a few minor copyedits as I go. Feel free to revert and let me know if you feel I've made any errors, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see anything problematic - I think Park Lane, London pre-dates the requested move where we made the London Park Lane the primary topic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Good question - I've gone back to the GLC report and I can see a clear claim for "over 300 shops" on that report, which is dated 2012 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • "which was not completed until the 1750s" -- What does this phrase refer to--intermittent rural property? (Fair warning, I'm suffering from a head cold while reading this, so my comprehension may be waning.) I'm not sure what it means for "rural property" to be "completed" in this context. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This claim is at the end of the second paragraph in the source given under the section "The Development of the Frontage". I've clarified this a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rookery"--would a British reader recognize this term right off? As an American I had to click through (I would have written "slum"). But you're under no obligation to pander to a man who's clearly forgotten his Dickens. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good question. Being a big fan of some of our Victorian London articles on here such as Whitechapel Murders, I know exactly what a rookery is, but I take your point. I've added ", or slum" on the end - will that do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, nuts to the GA, I'll take whatever suggestions are offered :-) ... I've removed "with shop fronts" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Selfridges was targeted again on 17 April 1941" -- this phrase implies the Germans were deliberately aiming for it, but the source doesn't seem clear. Would "hit" or "struck" or "bombed" work here in place of "targeted"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to "bombed". The Nazis were obviously aiming to damage property to reduce morale and weaken defence, but I don't think Hitler specifically had it in for Selfridge's. One might speculate he'd have wanted to get some designer dresses for Eva Braun, but that's original research.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is expected to be completed in 2017" --it would be great to get this sentence into past tense so it can't "expire", though perhaps that's not possible here. Could you phrase it as something like "which developers expected to be completed in 2017"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it so "with development expected to finish in 2017". We had a similar (albeit more significant) issue on Dartford Crossing's GA review, which was a few months before the introduction of electronic tagging. In the end, I assured the reviewer I would watchlist the article and ensure it was up to date (in the end an IP got there first, I think). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will stop here for the day. More soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast responses! Everything above looks good and can be considered  Done. Will hopefully finish my read-through tomorrow morning (US time). -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again I've made some small changes as I went. I believe they're all very trivial, but please double-check me and feel free to revert anything that doesn't seem right to you. Most of these are beyond the scope of a GA review anyway. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable buildings

  • "It is the biggest shopping street in Inner London" -- "biggest" is a little ambiguous here, in that it could mean widest street, longest street, street that does the most business, street with the most shops... is it possible to clarify? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone with "most frequently visited" and dropped in the half million daily visitors from the source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the most popular tourist destinations" -- is this still "in Inner London"? or a wider scope? Maybe the sentence could be rephrased as "It is the biggest shopping street and one of the most popular tourist destinations in Inner London" -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source (Tim Moore's book) doesn't explictly say Inner London, though I don't think it's original research to say most people visiting London are going for somewhere around the West End. I've just said "London" for this bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still worth doing, so I have. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is their largest retail premises in the company" --a company should generally be "it" and not "they". Since "its" would be ambiguous here, okay to write "it is Lush's largest retail premises"?-- Khazar2 (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only in American English! In Britain, consensus is that organisations (most obviously bands) can be referred to in the plural. I've changed it to "the company's" anyhow. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How funny... just when I think I've got my Am/Brit English differences down, something new always comes up. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pollution

  • "In 2014, it was reported that Oxford Street had the world's highest concentration of nitrogen dioxide pollution," -- is it possible to say who made this report? Even if the news article is vague on this (I can't see the full content through the paywall), perhaps you could say "experts" per the article's lede, or simply give the newspaper's name. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've found another source that names the original reporter. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas lights

  • "Cheryl Fernandez-Versini" -- It looks like Cheryl Cole married and changed her name in July 2014, so this would have been her name for the light ceremony--yes? I have no idea who this person is, so if I'm wrong to have changed it, please revert and trout me; I only noticed because I have a script that highlights redirects. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheryl Cole became a household name in Britain particularly after appearing on the The X Factor alongside Simon Cowell - everybody knows who she is. (Of course as a struggling musician I despite the X Factor and everything it stands for, but I'm probably just a curmudgeonly old fart.) I don't read tabloids for fun (and seldom for verification on Wikipedia articles!) so I had no idea she had remarried. As her article has been moved, I guess it must be right. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the quotations from the sources on Andre and the Spice Girls be deleted? (Currently references 59 and 60) I don't think they're particularly needed for proof, so it may be best to remove them as unneeded use of copyrighted material. But I don't think they're a violation, either. Not a GA level issue. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, they're not necessary just to verify a name and a year. Gone. (I used to really despise the Spice Girls when they were at the peak of their fame and when I was in my 20s, but I have mellowed over the years and actually quite like a few of their songs :-/) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listed buildings

  • Some entries in the "Description" column ended in periods and some didn't; I removed all periods. If you prefer it the other way, feel free to switch it, but it should probably be consistent. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever disagreements about punctuation or dashes arise, I feel like this and cower under a desk until they go away again. (tl;dr - that's fine) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references

  • It's a little awkward to have a two-sentence section tucked down here like this. Is it possible to integrate this into the "history" section, by mentioning what year this version of Monopoly premiered? If not, I'll need to refresh my memory on whether the layout criterion allows short sections like this (sorry, I'm pretty rusty at this). -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I parked this here because I am certain that Oxford Street will turn up in some literary works that are worth passing mentions in this section, which should take it up to about 4-5 sentences. It's a bit of a standing joke that Oscar Wilde turns up all over the place in User:Ritchie333/Monopoly articles, largely because he did just that in real life! There's this Victoria & Albert Museum source that describes British theatre around the time of The Importance of Being Earnest - what else? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that. I checked MOS:LAYOUT and the relevant language is "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading" and "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." Since there's leeway, and this is just one section, I'm fine signing off on it, though I'd still recommend integrating it into History until the other cultural references are found. Ultimately up to you and others here though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dickens for the win! Consider my concern resolved. I'll check the license tags in a minute, after I stop being fascinated by these news stories about Americans boycotting Starbucks for not having Christmas-y enough cups. The clarification tags added to 2-3 places on the article will also need to be resolved or worked out on the talk page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

  • Ideally the lead should touch on each of the article's sections. Is it possible to make a quick reference to the listed buildings, and (if not integrated elsewhere), the Monopoly space? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see why not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...but it seems @Ehrenkater: disagrees. Can we come to a consensus? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection if this was moved to the history section, as Khazar suggests above (I agree with him/her that a two-sentence section like that is a bit awkward) but it is not important enough for the lead section.----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this seems like another terrific article, Ritchie (and everyone else who's contributed here). It's readable, richly detailed without being unencyclopedic, and quite interesting to a foreigner like me who's never really heard of this place. Your brief descriptions of traffic and pollution controversies are particularly lucid. Thanks again for your work on it.

The only thing I still need to check on my end is the image licenses, but I have to run now to take Little Miss Khazar to the Science Museum. Will place this on a two-week hold for you to address the above, though I don't think it's anything that will take you long. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't think "Via Trinobantina" requires italics, since it's a proper name; I'm going to change this back for now. But I could well be wrong, and it's not a GA-level issue either way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen Roman names (which this is) in italics, but I can't remember where the MOS falls on this or not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good either way, obviously. I suspect this is a borderline case. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
  • [1] needs its US copyright status appended.
Sounds good. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The new image is a big improvement--thanks. I think the only remaining point for this review is getting a US public domain tag on [2], and I'll hold it open on more day to see if Ehrenkater has any final concerns. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I've got with File:Oxford Street, looking west from Duke Street. Site of Selfridges on the right.jpg is I've got absolutely no idea where it came from. There is no obvious online source, and the uploader, Gillian Tipson has not edited Wikipedia in over 10 years. What on earth should I put in the image copyright tag?
I also want to do a final check on "cultural references" to check for any other literary references. Ehrenkater is a good copyeditor and looking at yesterday's edits I think he did a quick check from top to bottom in order, so he might be all done for now, but it doesn't hurt to ask. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the image might have be removed from the article unless we can confirm the source meets US Public Domain requirements; the current tag is incomplete and I'm not sure how we'd verify that ourselves. While it seems very, very likely to be in the public domain, my understanding is that if by chance the image wasn't first published until the 1930s or something, it might not be. But I'm always weak on copyright law and would be glad to check with someone more expert if you'd like me to. Up to you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a deletion discussion on Commons for that image, and added a replacement image from British History Online - they only print PD images in their online catalogue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This should be all set then. My weekend got suddenly busy but will do a last check on Monday or Tuesday. Nice work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other bits

[edit]
  • "In 1739, local gardener Thomas Huddle began to build property on the north-east side" - development of the street progressed from east to west (ie: progressively away from London) which I think the rest of the article implies, but I think in this instance the "north" side is probably what is meant.
  • "Peter Robinson partially reopened on 22 September, but large parts of the premises remained closed off with war advertising and propaganda." The source says "Parts of Peter Robinson's were reopened four days later, but its Oxford Circus storefront was boarded up and subsequently used to display war advertising hoardings." I've rewritten this sentence.
  • "The ban was introduced experimentally in June 1972. It was considered a success, with an estimated revenue increase[clarification needed][Shops? Taxis?] of £250,000." The source says "The report issued by London Transport this afternoon shows that pedestrians and the other people using the Oxford Street area have possibly benefited to the tune of £250,000". Taking that literally, it would imply the pedestrians collectively received 250 grand, but that doesn't make sense so I can assume it means retail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Spotchecks show no copyright issues; prose is good. 3 clarification tags need resolution.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Possible layout issue with small section at end. Complies in all criterion guidelines.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Google search reveals no important aspects that aren't covered.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No promotional claims; factual claims are clearly sourced to reliable sources.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No evidence of edit warring, but will wait 48 hours to be sure the issues raised in Ehrenkater's tags are resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. One image needs its US copyright status clarified--see above
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. A solid article on a major landmark. Congratulations to all involved.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oxford_Street/GA1&oldid=967082618"