Jump to content

Talk:Piccadilly/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: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 21:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 21:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]
  • No XX or No. XX
    • You sometimes use an unnecessary full stop after No and sometimes don't. Obviously it is better to use modern British practice and avoid the full stop, but if you favour this quaint proceeding you should at least be consistent.
I have gone for No. xx consistently across London street articles I'm working on - this should now be all consistent. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images
    • alt text lacking.
I've added annotated text to all images; though I'm not sure how to display it
  • Lead
    • Why pipe St James's to include an unnecessary full stop? We manage well enough with plain "St James's" in the main text.
St James's is the correct name for the church and it should be that everywhere in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't need two links to Hyde Park Corner from the lead, surely?
No, unlinked the second. Also I think the lead is a little too long, particularly the middle two paragraphs, for an 18K prose article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early history
    • "1559/60 and 1611-12" – the MoS would have us use en-dashes, rather than slashes or hyphens: 1559–60 and 1611–12.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Lammas" – a link, perhaps?
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "that were then in fashion" – as this is what grammarians call a non-defining (or non-restrictive) clause, "that" should be "which".
I don't think "that were" is needed - removed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the death of their next eldest son" – this reads most unfortunately; I'd replace "their" with "the".
Agreed, fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later 17th century
    • Surprising to see the American "advisor" rather than the British "adviser".
I didn't know that - fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • First para, last sentence: needs a citation
Done, I parked the cn tag here so I'd remember to do it
    • "No 162 – 165" – "Nos 162–165" (MoS)?
I think this is fixed - I have a script to do these changes Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Inn" – is a link really necessary or desirable here?
Delinked Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The inn was in active use" – as opposed to inactive use?
I've copyedited this sentence to say the same thing differently Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The proposal stalled at several Bill readings" – this will be incomprehensible to many readers. Better to say something on the lines of "It took several attempts before the proposal gained parliamentary approval".
Rewritten Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18th–19th century
    • Second para – I don't think I've ever seen pub or restaurant names italicised before, and I think they should be in plain type. See the GAs on Pétrus (restaurant) and The Fat Duck.
Agreed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and much later, in 1887" – I don't think we need be told that 1887 is much later than 1790.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "whig" – a duplicate link, and shouldn't it be capitalised, as earlier?
Yes, as it's a proper noun Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am surprised that there is no mention of St James's Hall, which was London's main concert hall until the Queen's Hall opened in 1893. It was on the north side of Piccadilly, opposite Eagle Place.
Added a bit Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20th - 21st century
    • "ascension as King George VI" – I think you mean "accession". I understand that "ascension" is reserved for the Deity.
I spotted this earlier so I think this is now fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Waterstones" or "Waterstone's"? – we have both in text and image caption.
I believe the correct name is "Waterstones" so I've gone with that Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third and fourth para – outbreaks of American "on So-and-so Street" instead of the English "in So-and-so Street".
I'm not so sure about this - certainly regarding "Boots on Piccadilly", I can easily see myself saying in real life Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the Americans will take over eventually, but I still stick up for the normal English form. See, for example, the archives of The Times. "in" is en regle; "on" doesn't appear. Let us try to keep good English for English articles as long as we can. Tim riley talk 21:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm ... of the four people living in my house, I'm the only one who wasn't born in the US :-/ ... still I've copyedited this to try and resolve the issue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The building was evicted" – it was the squatters who were evicted.
Reworded Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but gave rise to" – something like "but their actions gave rise to"?
Reworded Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cultural references
    • The first four paragraphs are completely unreferenced, and an editor has (rightly) tagged them as "citation needed". I see that since I typed that, someone has removed the section. Is it going back in, duly referenced? I need to know exactly what text I am supposed to be reviewing. I think I had better put the review on hold, while this is sorted out. Tim riley talk 09:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ritchie added that this morning and I swiftly hid it but it was too late, you saw it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section was on my todo list to fix. I parked it on the talk page while I worked out what to do with it, then started to integrate it into the main article so it would be ready for GA in a day or two. Also there are still a number of "See also" entries that could do with replacing as prose, and one [citation needed] where we need to cite all the societies in Burlington House (Weinreb et al's London Encyclopedia doesn't list them). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're on hold for a week. Shall I sit tight for a few days or do you want me to finish the review now? Tim riley talk 16:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: May as well finish it now, I'll do my best to address them if Ritchie can't.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there. I keep rereading the sentence "The land upon which Piccadilly sits, with the exception of 1¾ acres (0.556 ha) on the east side of what is now Great Windmill Street..." and trying to make geographical sense of it. Great Windmill Street is half way up Shaftesbury Avenue, blocks away from Piccadilly. Tim riley talk 07:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading the source, it seems the 1¾ acres is referring to the area around Piccadilly described in that Survey of London chapter, and not Piccadilly per se. Since it's therefore not a verifiable claim, I've removed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley:, @Dr. Blofeld: I think I've addressed all the issues now, and also fixed a number of reference errors (I have installed several scripts that complain about these loudly); can you take another look? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. 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:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

All fine now. I enjoyed this article greatly, and am very pleased to be able to promote it. Tim riley talk 12:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Piccadilly/GA1&oldid=1137085366"