Talk:The Crescent, Taunton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Noswall59 (talk · contribs) 11:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to follow over the next day or so, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Some initial comments:

History

Using the word "century" twice in the opening sentence is a bit repetitive. Perhaps "Disruption caused by the Civil War (1642–1651) coupled with the cloth industry's decline in the 18th century..." or something like that.
- Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does "poor state" mean? It doesn't really tell the reader much.
- Not done yet. Harrias ^talk 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I've looked at the source material and the sentence in question, and I recall writing that bit and thinking "well that's crap". Essentially, I want to provide the context that the Civil War had burnt down 2/3 of the town, and the reliance on the cloth trade had caused the town to suffer economic decline. Only, worded better! Harrias ^talk 17:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is the comma necessary before "with the dual aims"?
- Removed. Harrias ^talk 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure you need to mention the "evils and drunkenness of a contested election" - it doesn't seem relevant here.
- I put it in as some context, but I can see what you mean. I could try something like In the late 18th century, the Taunton Market House Society formed with one of its aims being the improvement Taunton town centre.. Or maybe something similar that reads better! Harrias ^talk 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Member of Parliament should be linked
- Linked. Harrias ^talk 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's relevant to state that he developed the plans despite his death. I think that goes without saying. nstead, I would start the paragraph with "The Cresent formed....", before describing its design as you do and then mentioning that "although Hammet died in 1800, the first foundation stone was placed in 1807." Also, first is redundant here.
- Good point, I've adapted it as suggested, though I might have a look at improving the flow slightly. Harrias ^talk 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It had been intended that further developments would be made on the site, but these did not initially happen." - unless there is some way of rewording this, I am not sure what this brings to the article - it is rather vague.
- Not done yet. Harrias ^talk 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I've tried rewording this slightly, is this any more useful? Harrias ^talk 17:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know anything more about who owned the land before the Crescent was built?
- Nothing that I can find. It may well have been Hammet himself, given the proximity to his "manor" in the town, but I haven't seen anything. Harrias ^talk 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know how the Council acquired the parkland on which it built County Hall? (Looking on StreetView, I am not sure why they built that '60s addition in such stark contrast to its Georgian surroundings...)
- Similarly, nothing I can see. (And I agree. I go to the Crescent a few times a month with work, and that building is such a sore thumb...) Harrias ^talk 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

On the eastern side of The Crescent, a terrace of houses was erected in 1807, following the Georgian style of the time -> On the eastern side of The Crescent, a Georgian terrace of houses was erected in 1807

Is "terrace of houses" necessary?

Changed the first as suggested, and removed redundancy ("of houses"). Harrias ^talk 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Were there any notable inhabitants?
- A few prominent local names, but not even prominent enough for a Wikipedia page, so I'll go with no, unless something else turns up! Harrias ^talk 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to follow, I will give it another looking over later and check the references. Regards, —15:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I am happy that, when the above issues are addressed, this will be a Good Article. I will add that I've inserted a primary source for the opening of the chapel in 1822, because English Heritage say 1812, presumably in error.

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

@Harrias: Well done on this, a good account of the street and an interesting read. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've got a fair bit of DIY to do over the Bank Holiday weekend, but I'll try my best to get to this, otherwise it's likely to be early next week. Harrias ^talk 21:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you haven't addressed the concerns by Tuesday, I will put it on hold then. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I've stolen a bit of free time and addressed most of the points. A couple I have marked "not done" as a personal note: I want to read around them before explaining more. Harrias ^talk 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Noswall59: I've sort of responded to all of the points, although one of them is more of a cry for help! Harrias ^talk 17:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Okay, I've tweaked the article as per above - take a look at my changes and see what you think. The other points aren't an issue, except for the "poor state" one. Perhaps just being a bit more specific about it. If it really is difficult to pin down, I guess it can stay, because the meaning is implicit, but see if there isn't a less vague way of describing it. Anyway, thanks for the changes made, this is close to promotion. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Noswall59: I've had a go at rewording that point for some clarity, is it any better, or just the same problem reworded?! Harrias ^talk 21:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Hi, I'm happier with that sentence now - it's not perfect, but I think its more helpful to the reader. I'm going to pass this now. Well done, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]