Talk:Welsh Streets, Liverpool/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 09:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to pick this one up. There is one Quick fail criteria I need to check out, but assuming that's addressed, I'll then get on to the main review over the next day or so. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article is a long way from meeting any one of the GA criteria.
The article contains copyright violations.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is unstable.

Earwig is showing a 46.8% match, [1], with an entry on this 2018 blog, [2]. It's all around Ringo Starr's house. My guess is that the blog has picked it up from here. I see Welsh Streets was started in Feb 2018 and the blog's dated October of that year. A second possibility is that it's your blog! Can you have a look and let me know what you think. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

~~p.s. I see an editor has now added a few tags, but nothing that can't be addressed in the course of the review, I think. KJP1 (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

@KJP1: Thanks for picking up the article. When I checked the copyvio page myself, it shows only 5.7% but not this blog in question? First time I have seen this blog (and obviously it would not be used as a source if I had). Which portion of text in particular was is referring to, or were you querying, as I am sure this should either have been already covered by a source or easily determined if needs be. I also noted the cleanup by another editor and the placed tags (some parts just need clarification or a rephrase). Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How very odd - when I ran it this morning, the output was 46.8%. When I run it now, it's the 5.7% you get, with no mention of that blog. Quite beyond my, limited, technical understanding. Anyways, there's now no issue, so I'll crack on with the main review. The tags were added by an editor who seems to be following me around just at present, but I agree there's nothing that can't be resolved during the review. KJP1 (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The article was in relative infancy at the date of this blog, so much of the content was added after this, so it is quite odd why it now doesn't detect it if it did before (but odd in a good way, I guess). Nevertheless, I'll seek to deal with the tags later today and will await your review of the article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Main review

1. It is well written.

a (prose): The standard of prose is high. Some suggestions for consideration below.

Lead

"in Toxteth, Liverpool, England near Princes Park" - not sure the "near Princes Park" particularly helps the reader, and it sits a little awkwardly after "England". Move to the body?

I take the point and as it is already mentioned in a further section, have removed the reference. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"architect Richard Owens" - I think this is what Mr Riley would call a false title. "the architect RO" or "RO, an architect"? Or even "RO, a Welsh-born architect"? This may well be useful, [3].

I don't think it gave the impression of a title, but have removed none the less. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" the house is now a popular tourist attraction" - "popular tourist attraction" is itself a bit "tourist brochure". Drop the popular?

Yes agree it may appear somewhat subjective, removed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"albeit to a different architectural style" - "in a different"?

Changed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"at a cost to the council" - I think we ought to say which council as they've not been mentioned previously, "at a cost to Liverpool City Council".

Yes you're right, it should mention the council by name for this reason, so I have amended. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"and the demolition never happened" - "and demolition did not take place"?

I don't see any real difference between the two, but have changed anyway as it isn't regressive. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"by the Government on the grounds of the effect it would have on cultural heritage" - I think the "it" needs to be plural as it relates to "proposals", and I think "cultural heritage" needs slight expansion. Perhaps something like; "by the government due to concerns about the negative impact they would have on the city's cultural heritage"?

I considered how else this may be worded and concluded your example was an appropriate rephrase. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The first tenants moved into Voelas Street" - "The first new tenants..."?

I guess so, unless it said "newly renovated", but this is adding unnecessary prose so took your suggestion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

"The Welsh Streets moniker is named as such given they were constructed by Welsh builders for immigrants seeking work and housing from Wales, named after Welsh towns, valleys and villages" - this doesn't quite flow for me. Perhaps something like, "The 'Welsh Streets' designation was given as they were constructed by Welsh builders for Welsh immigrants seeking work and housing in Liverpool and were named after Welsh towns, valleys and villages"?

I think it's important to differentiate between a designation, which sounds quite formal/official, and a moniker which is more informal and a nickname. Although they are referred to as the Welsh Streets in practically every known source, I don't believe this is an official designation, but something that has come about over time. The term "moniker" I feel is better placed. I have however restructured the sentence. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely take the point. My only concern re. moniker is accessibility. It's an arcane word that will challenge some native English speakers, and will totally baffle non-natives. But it's not a deal-breaker for me. KJP1 (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think when looking at the context of the sentence as a whole, any lack of understanding of the term does not detract from the ability to understand the information being presented (namely, that it explains how it came to be referred to as Welsh Streets). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"with the inclusion of trees planted in the early 20th century that did not protrude upon the housing and positioned with sufficient clearance" - not quite getting this. "intrude" rather than "protrude" and "clearance" for/from what? Perhaps, "allowing the planting of trees in the early 20th century which were well-spaced and did not intrude on the housing"?

Fair enough, I have rephrased. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The streets are within a close proximity to Liverpool City Centre and within 15 minutes walking distance to Liverpool Cathedral, which is clearly visible from the streets." - a couple of things. Replacing "within a close proximity to" with "close to", saves three words and doesn't lose anything. And starting and ending with "the streets" is a little awkward. Lastly, as Liverpool's got two cathedrals, should we distinguish which? Perhaps, "and within 15 minutes walking distance of Liverpool's Anglican cathedral, which is clearly visible throughout the area"?

I have condensed this as per suggestion. The Anglican Cathedral is officially called the Liverpool Cathedral and adding Anglican I feel would be a bit unnatural. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"architect Joseph Paxton in 1840" - another false title. "laid out in 1840 by Joseph Paxton, the architect of The Crystal Palace"?

Yes, reworded and made note to his later career as an MP. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early history

"architect Richard Owens" - false title, see Lead.

Removed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"persuaded to migrate by the promise of work opportunities" - I don't think "opportunities" adds anything.

Removed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"can be significantly attributed to Welsh migrants" - what does significantly mean in this context? "mainly/largely"? Perhaps, "Welsh migrants made significant contributions to the urban development of Victorian Liverpool"? And you could link Victorian era, or in the lead.

Rephrased. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Later history

"The terraced houses have outlived" - do houses "outlive” things? "outlasted"?

Fair point, I have reworded as advised. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the latter parts of the 20th century" - is the "s" necessary?

Probably, not, so removed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the original clearance plans perhaps accounting for a further 10% loss of the remainder" - maths was never my strong suit but is that 10% of the remaining stock, or 10% of the original total, i.e. 60% in total has now been lost?

Reading the reference, I understand this to be a loss of 10% of what is left (so if 50% is lost, and 50% left, a 10% loss of the remaining 50%, or 5% of the original overall total). I don't think it's necessary to convolute this explanation in the article, although I have reworded slightly. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline and Pathfinder renewal

"Council survey data published in 2005 showed the Welsh Streets were broadly popular with residents and in better than average condition, but were condemned for demolition" - I don't think the survey data condemned the Welsh Streets for demolition, as most respondents liked them. Perhaps, "Council survey data published in 2005 showed the Welsh Streets were broadly popular with residents and in better than average condition, but the council nevertheless recommended demolition"?

Fair enough, amended. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Some residents who were keen on staying expressed concern that the planned hew housing" - typo, "new"

Good spot! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions and renewal proposals

"Joe Anderson wrote a letter to Eric Pickles in July 2013, submitting his approved view on the proposed redevelopment, suggesting the decision should in fact be a local matter and believed the scale of the proposal was "not of national importance", whilst suggesting there were "no design or heritage issues arising"" - Perhaps, "Anderson wrote to Pickles in July 2013, confirming his support for the proposed redevelopment, suggesting the decision should be a local matter and stating that the scale of the proposal was "not of national importance" and that "no design or heritage issues" arose"?

I have reworded part of this, taking some of your suggestions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final para. - I think this needs a bit of rework to smooth and simplify. This quote appears twice in three sentences, "will significantly harm the ability to understand and appreciate this part of Liverpool’s Beatles heritage". And I think "directly contradicting the view of an inspector" is clearer than "directly contrasting".

Perhaps; i'll look at this more closely and consider how improvements could be implemented. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have restructured this paragraph now, removing the duplicate prose and reordering other parts to flow better. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refurbishment

"With few alternate options" - "alternative"?

Changed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"with expected residents moving in" - what's the "expected" doing? "with residents expected to move in"?

I think because the preceding sentence said the houses had already been taken and so the residents were expected by then. However, rephrasing this as per your suggestion doesn't take anything away so I have changed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The proposals involved knocking some houses together to create larger living spaces" - I think we've been told this in the para. above?

Yes good spot. I have removed the 2nd instance and combined the remainder of the sentence with the previous one by splitting. Hope this looks ok. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

"of which the vast majority, nearly £20.9 million" - I'd drop the "vast" which is a bit journalese.

Removed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The cost to secure properties was a little over £525,000 and just over £280,000 was spent to disconnect all services to properties" - I'm guessing the "secure" means "make secure" rather than "get", and the double "properties" is a bit jarring. Perhaps, "The cost to make the properties secure was a little over £525,000 and just over £280,000 was spent on disconnecting services"?

Changed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ringo Starr birthplace

"Musician Ringo Starr" - another false title. Does he need one, or is he sufficiently well-known? If he does, "Ringo Starr, the drummer for The Beatles..."

Amended. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

b (MoS):

MoS isn't my forte but the article looks compliant to me.

2. It is verifiable with Wikipedia:No original research.

a (references)

Almost everything that needs a cite, has one. The only gap I can see is the final sentence of the second para. of Geography. I think the convention is for para.s to end in cites and the line about its council ward isn't supported.

I have included a Liverpool Council report on the Princes Park ward which clearly shows the streets contained within and the Welsh Streets are there, so used this as a cite. I also used another page to include some other info on the surrounding area for Geography, but I don't know how the author should be attributed for the "sfn" template usage. I'd appreciate if you could advise how this could be done, as I am not happy with how I have done this currently. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

b (citations to reliable sources)

I've scanned all of the sources as, with the exception of Chitty, they're all online (a great help!) and they look fine. The only one that gave me pause is Dr Carr's speech, which probably hasn't been peer-reviewed! But he's a reputable academic at a reputable uni. and Save used him as an adviser, so I think it's fine. My only other puzzlement relates to the lack of interest by Historic England and Pevsner. This isn't, of course, a criticism of the article, if they haven't commented, they haven't commented, but I'm surprised HE had no view on demolition, and that my revised Lancashire: Liverpool Pevsner doesn't seem to mention the Welsh Streets at all. There are the slimmest of pickings in the PAG Liverpool City guide as follows, which may be useful: Richard Owens designed Westminster Buildings on Dale Street for "David Roberts, Son & Co, surveyors, leading players in Liverpool's Welsh-dominated house-building industry". (Sharples, 2004,p=144) Also, in the section on Prince's Park, "there is a sudden change of scale to the simplest of two-storey houses in streets mostly laid out and built up during the 1860s-70s". (p=276) I'm assuming this is referring to Welsh Streets. The proximity of these very basic houses with the grandeur of Windermere Terrace is interesting.

As previously noted, I have expanded upon Richard Owens using the sharples reference. Historic England show the appeal report on their website from several years back, but I don't see a specific mention of them or a comment from them regarding the proposals of the time. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

c (OR)

I've found no evidence of original research,

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations)

nor of plagiarism or copyvio.

3. It is broad in its scope.

a (major aspects)

Two points here

I think I'd put in a para. about Richard Owens in the Early history section. He's the architect of the streets, has a significance as part of the Welsh contribution to Liverpool's development, and warrants a bit more, in my view, than the passing mention he currently gets. The Carr speech, plus the link in the Lead comments above should provide sufficient material for a brief para.

While doing further searching for Richard Owens, I came across this article for him on the Welsh wikipedia, so I have translated it and created this article, thus I can perhaps add a bit more using this content too and link to him now as well. You raised a good point and I will endeavour to expand upon the information written about him currently. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bungle - Great find! I've added a little bit, and it will be great to have a bluelink to him in this article. KJP1 (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I see you were quick to make further edits to the article (I hadn't done much checking beyond the translation, aside from a few minor amendments). I have linked to the new article now too but will still expand upon his involvement separately within this article (and maybe some of that can be used on his new article). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional prose for Richard Owens, using info from what is now the parent article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of points where it think the "story" needs closing, e.g. "Madryn Street remained derelict up to 2018" in the Ringo Starr section. Two years on, has it been refurb'ed? And in Refurbishment - "Long standing vacant land on Voelas Street, Wynnstay Street and South Street will become occupied by" - has any further progress been made? It may be that the sources just don't tell us, but if they do.

I understand they now have been refurbished, but only from photographs that show this. Streets were done in order and it has taken some time. I'll try and find something that concludes/confirms in writing the situation as-of today. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to reword to conclude this, as well as updating the photo of Ringo's old house to clearly show that refurbishment has taken place. Another photo above this of Voelas Street shows completed refurbishment too (of existing properties, as I believe new construction is still ongoing). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

b (focused)

It stays appropriately focused on the history of the Streets.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

The article is appropriately balanced and pushes no view.

5. It is stable.

The article is indeed stable and there are no ongoing edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

Images all look good for use.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

A good selection of images, with appropriate captions, well-illustrating the article's main points. Alt text isn't a GA requirement but you might want to think about it if you're going further.

Additional images are now included too, kindly thanks to Rodhullandemu. I am especially happy by the mural photo which I have incorporated into the infobox. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wall mural does indeed look very good, and gives a real “feel” of the location. KJP1 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen this mural on media photos, I knew it would be the best one to use as the primary image and I am happy with how this is presented now. Other photos have been added too, though I am mindful not to "flood" the article with excess imagery. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail:

Overall, a very interesting article on a subject with intrinsic interest that also highlights the debate between renovation or demolition as the best approach to urban renewal. I'll stick it on hold now and you can take a look at the suggestions. In the main, they are suggestions, which you may, or may not, choose to action, but I do think a little more on Owens is required. Give me a holler here if anything needs clarification / discussion. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: This is an exceptional and very thorough review, many thanks for this. Looking briefly through your notes, you raise many valid queries and improvement suggestions which I shall implement. If I do have any followup queries, I will of course let you know. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pleasure - to read and to review. If more sources are needed to expand Owens, Google keeps on giving. This, [4], for example gives a nice flavour of Owens the man. And Marcus Binney’s quote, here,[5], is quite nice. KJP1 (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: I think I have pretty much worked through your review and made the necessary amendments you suggested. I would still like your comment/amendment to the ward profile reference attribution for the sfn usage, but besides this I think I have concluded the suggested improvements/changes, as well as some other additions. Can you look through and advise if you can see anything else that would prohibit this from achieving GA standard? On an entirely separate note, I think it would be an excellent article to be featured, and I am aware you are involved in the FAC process; what suggestions could you make that would help this article take that final step? I have never been involved in an FA article before, but numerous GAs, so it would be nice to have that achievement! Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great and it's a pleasure to cut the ribbon and Pass it. Many congratulations. My one suggestion on FA is to go to Peer Review first. Unfortunately, PR's not as active as it was, but if you're lucky and get some responses, you have the enormous benefit of a wider range of opinions/expertise, whereas at GA you only get one other view, in this case mine! This can really help polish up an article, and it is so much easier to do that away from the glare of FAC, which can sometimes be a bit intense. In essence, I think it has all the makings of FA, but I'd strongly recommend PR first. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks for the great review and your supplementary advice too (which has resulted in a new article too). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]