Talk:Senate House, London/GA2

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

The article appears to be reasonably well written; but, as per the previous GA nomination, its main failing is lack of WP:verification.

Considering the article section by section, but leaving the WP:lead until last:

• Senate House Library -  DonePyrotec (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• First paragraph unreferenced, apart from the one that I added.
  • Think that does it. --DavidCane (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sort of. However, reference 3 contradicts what the article claims.Pyrotec (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • OK. Clarified that. --DavidCane (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Second paragraph unreferenced apart from one sentence.
  • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Slightly better, but ref 5 does not provide verification of "It is the third largest library in London, after the British Library and British Library of Political and Economic Science", so this is still outstanding.Pyrotec (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed that legacy claim as it does not seem to be supported anywhere on the senate house library site. --DavidCane (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Third paragraph unreferenced.
  • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sort of. However, reference 7 does not appear to confirm the statment "the largest public collection in Europe of books relating to the study of western manuscripts".Pyrotec (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed that legacy claim as well. --DavidCane (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• History of the building -  DonePyrotec (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• First paragraph unreferenced.
  • Added the missing reference. --DavidCane (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Done.Pyrotec (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Karol reference -  Done.Pyrotec (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC

The web link given is broken, so these in-line citations can't be verified.

• Fixed. The online magazine has been archived and the url has changed. --DavidCane (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• References -

This article is rather light-weight in respect of references. Most of the in-line citations come from only three sources: Hill, Karol, and the University's own site. Rather surprisingly Hill is used as a reference to quote Pevsner; why Pevsner is quoted directly is not obvious to me.Pyrotec (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't link to Pevsner directly as I don't have a copy of the relevant volumne of his guides to hand (London 6: Westminster). I could have just put a link in, but, without checking it, it would have been a cheat and contrary to WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. --DavidCane (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your answer is correct, it is my statement that is incorrect. What I should have, more-correctly, stated was: "Rather surprisingly Hill is used as a reference to quote Pevsner - why the quoation is not taken directly from the revelvant volume of Pevsner, is not obvious to me.Pyrotec (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm assuming that Karol got the quote from the book in the Pevsner Architectural Guide as he does not list his source in the article (I'm sure it will be in his book on Holden). I haven't had the opportunity to get into a bookshop or library to check, but when I do I'll put it in directly.--DavidCane (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Further initial comments

• References -  DonePyrotec (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately references 9 to 14 are based on the use of a search string; and the search engine has timed out so all the verification links are reliant on the reviewer doing the search and that is not the reviewer's responsibility (see WP:Verify#Burden of evidence).

I have modified the URLs in the references. I think this change should make them persistent, but I'll check in a few days.--DavidCane (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• WP:lead -

The lead is intended to do two things: provide an introduction to the article and to summarise the main points of the article. The current lead is rather short. It provides a kind of introduction to the article, but it is not clear from the lead why the first section is Senate House Library, followed by History of the building. These are probably valid arrangments, but the lead aught to 'introduce' the subject so that it is more obvious to the reader why the article is so arranged.

The lead does not really provide a summary, for instance the history and the architecture of the building is not summarised. I would suggest that the lead be expanded from one sentence and one paragraph to two or three full paragraphs, and an adequate summary provided.Pyrotec (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the content of the lead to summarise the article a bit more but for an article of this length two paragraphs would be the normal length to avoid too much repetition. I have also reorder the sections so that History comes first with the Senate Library later. --DavidCane (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

The article has been considerably improved since its last WP:GAN, and also as a result of this review. I now consider it to be of GA-standard.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   The use of direct quotations from sources such as Pevsnor rather than quoting them 'second hand' would enhance the verifiabiliy of the article considerably.

   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:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)