Talk:Savile Row/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 16:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to review this article over the next few days.

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Issues (all of these are pretty minor and mainly to do with pedantry. The article is mostly very good)

• "...the street has had a varied history which has included accommodating the headquarters of the..." The first para of the intro is a bit verbose. There is a lot to accommodate, but perhaps some, like the Beatles performance, could be trimmed.

• "Nutters of Savile Row..." It is assumed that the reader is at least partly familiar with tailors (it sounds a bit like a rock band:), so perhaps an explanation would be useful.

• There is no mention made in the history of recent moves towards selling in the Far East. I think this is at least partly the case? (I happen to know somebody's mother.) Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wondering how much more could (more accurately should) be removed from tailoring. If it is a broad article about the street, I think that perhaps non-milestone tailors like Anderson & Sheppard should be removed. (I could be wrong about their significance.) Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Very good points being raised. Perceptive and thoughtful. I think I agree with all (possibly quibble about the importance of the Far East connection, though can see the value of mentioning it). I'll work on all of them. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Have cleaned up the templates, so will now get to work removing any journalistic colouration that may have crept in. Jamesx12345 (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see you are active on the article. Let me know if there's anything you want or need me to do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The last paragraph seems a bit enthusiastic, being mainly composed of quotes. I ran two sentences together to make it flow better, but it still isn't as encyclopaedic as the rest. Jamesx12345 (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Going away

I will be going away on Monday for a week, so if this article could be promoted now it would avoid drawing out the nomination process. You clearly know more about the process than I do - I wouldn't say this article is perfect, if such a thing were possible, but it is definitely "good". Perhaps another reviewer could decide? I might have spent too long on it (not that I did very much!) for my opinion to be worth very much. Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. If you can't decide, just close the review as not-listed, and I'll re-nominate. If you prefer, I could close it for you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I would rather get it done and put it through now, as it has already been closed recently. My only remaining concern is the last paragraph. It doesn't somehow draw it to a close appropriately, stalling some time around 1997. Perhaps a word on how business has been since 2008, and future prospects? The article also omits Abercrombie, which caused something of a stir recently. I might do a bit of research myself and try and get it done by this evening. Jamesx12345 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That's the spirit! I was starting to wonder if this article was jinked. Well done on finishing the review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Will put through

This, I think, does meet the GA criteria as it stands. The final paragraph is commented out and awaiting expansion or deletion, but it seems it would be impossible to reference in a satisfactory fashion given the nature of what is being said. As such, I think this version merits promotion, even though there is scope for further expansion. Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at what you have done, and at the remaining concerns you have. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)