Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Covent Garden/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:31, 9 June 2011 [1].

---

Covent Garden

Covent Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Covent Garden/archive1

• Featured article review/Covent Garden/archive1

Nominator(s): SilkTork *^YES! 21:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I just updated the cite links and read through the article again, and felt that it looked quite good. Usually when I look back a few months later on an article I've taken through GA, I can see more weaknesses than strengths. With this one, I'm still seeing the strengths. There are weaknesses for sure that people will pick out that I can't see right now, and I'm quite happy to deal with that. SilkTork *^YES! 21:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Jenks24

Comments from Jenks24:

• The reference formatting needs to be consistent; currently you use a lot of different styles. Pick one and change all the others to that style.
• Year ranges, such as 1552-1918, need to have an en dash instead of a hyphen (see MOS:DASH). Same goes for page ranges in the refs.
• There are a couple of one sentence paragraphs that should either be merged into other paragraphs or expanded.
• According to this, two of the wikilinks in the article are redirects to this article. They should be unlinked.
• Ref 12 comes up with a 404 error when I try to view it.
• Does the heading "The Bedford Estate (1552-1918)" need "The" at the beginning of it?

Jenks24 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments.

Thanks for the nudge regarding the paragraphs - I've tidied them up, apart from a one sentence paragraph at the end of the lead, which I can't see any easy way to deal with.

Sources consistently refer to "The Bedford Estate" - [2], [3], etc.

I'm not clear regarding - "The reference formatting needs to be consistent". As far as I can see all the citations are footnotes. Can you point to where you see Harvard references. Or am I misunderstanding the criteria? It reads: " consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)".

I'm not good with telling the difference between a dash and a hyphen - they look the same to me. But I'll have a go.

Redirects. Yes, I noticed that when I did the tool checks, but neither Covent Garden Market nor Lamb & Flag (Covent Garden) are in the article - I did a search. Lamb & Flag is mentioned at least twice, but is not linked.

I've checked the external links again, and manually loaded Refs 11, 12 and 13 with no problem. It must have been a browser error. SilkTork *^YES! 16:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The redirects are in two navigation templates at the bottom of the article. The links go to specific sections in the article dealing with those topics. For example Covent Garden Market redirects from Template:London markets to Covent_Garden#Covent_Garden_market. This appears to be appropriate usage. SilkTork *^YES! 16:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've cut and pasted a dash on The Bedford Estate (1552–1918), but I wouldn't know which of the page ranges in the refs use a dash and which use a hyphen. Is there someone who knows the difference who can do this? SilkTork *^YES! 16:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, see your point, should be "The Bedford Estate".

Good job merging the one sentence paragraphs. About the one left in the lead, I can't see a way to deal with it either (hopefully someone else might later).

On the dash/hyphen front I've tidied them up for you (I should have just done that originally).

About the redirects, yes, I guess they are fine.

I'm still getting a 404 page for ref 12 when I try to view it, but it may just be me. I'd appreciate it if future reviewer(s) could check this out.

Now, about the references. I'm not trying to say that there are any Harvard style references. What I'm trying to say is that the footnotes are not "consistently formatted". For example,

(18) John Richardson, The annals of London: Volume 2000 Part 2, page 105. University of California Press, 2000, ISBN 0520227956. Retrieved 2010-07-27.

(57) Clive Boursnell, Peter Ackroyd, Covent Garden: The Fruit, Vegetable and Flower Markets. Frances Lincoln Publishers. 2008. p. 7. ISBN 0711228604. Retrieved 2010-07-27.

(59) Christopher Hibbert, Ben Weinreb (2008). The London Encyclopaedia. Pan Macmillan. pp. 214–215. ISBN 1405049243. Retrieved 2010-07-28.

They are not consistent with each other; they are all slightly different. It is the same throughout the references section. This being said, I'm not a very experienced FAC reviewer at all, and if an experienced reviewer was to come along and say it's fine like it is, then I would strike my comments. The reason I think it needs to be like this is because I have seen Brianboulton (talk · contribs) and Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), both experienced FAC reviewers, make similar comments on the consistency of footnotes at previous FACs. Jenks24 (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw what you did with the dashes, and I've just inserted the same script and tried it out. Simples! One click and it's done! I feel liberated. SilkTork *^YES! 17:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see a significant difference between the cites you list. They show author, publication, publisher, date, and page number. The ones you sample have ISBN numbers, though to be honest I haven't given those in recent citations when I have been able to link directly to GoogleBooks. I can see that the order is not always the same - though it should be as the template organises that. Unless the template has changed recently - I'll check. SilkTork *^YES! 18:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  I just tested the template, and it still places the items in order. What had happened is that sometimes the cite template had not been correctly used. I will look through for other examples of that. SilkTork *^YES! 18:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Note re:citation consistency. In some cases there is not a huge difference (maybe the examples chosen were not the most obvious), but we do require consistency here - Jenks is correct on that point. Furthermore, it's not reliant on the citation templates. For example, look at ref 1: you've included the page number as part of the title instead of in its own parameter (also, are you trying to link to a specific page in the book? That doesn't work well). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for picking that up Nikkimaria - there were a couple more I missed, and I've tidied them now. That was the result of the use of a comma instead of a straight line - the template being not correctly used. As regards the "we do require consistency here" - could you clarify - as the article does have consistency in line with my reading of the criteria. What reading are you taking from the criteria that I'm not getting? SilkTork *^YES! 08:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As regards "(also, are you trying to link to a specific page in the book? That doesn't work well)" - it works on my browser and on toolserver. Jenks also mentioned problems with a link. What browsers are you guys using that is creating problems for you? SilkTork *^YES! 08:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"consistently formatted inline citations" - you can check out other FACs on the page to see how we interpret that, but in essence it means that similar references should be formatted the same. For example: ref 43 vs 44, "Property Week." vs "www.propertyweek.com."; Boursnell includes publisher location while Burford does not; some sources include full bibliographic info in both footnote and bibliography; refs 6 and 55 are both books but are quite differently formatted; etc. Does that help? In regards to links, in the case of GBooks links it's not so much a matter of browser as of location: different countries have different copyright laws, so while that first link may take you directly to the page you need, for me it allows access only to the book description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I see consistency of citation style as explained by WP:CITEVAR in which the article does not vary between parenthetical and <ref> tags, and does not vary between short and full footnotes, and does not - as far as I'm aware - mix academic styles. I'm not clear why there might be a problem for a reader encountering either Property Week or propertyweek.com; though will change that - and any other examples you find - if you feel it is important. I hope I'm not being awkward here - I'm just not seeing the relevance, and am wondering if "consistently formatted" has been too strictly interpreted. If that is the general consensus (and I'm not an FA regular - I just dip in now and again), then fair enough. What's the difference between Refs 6 and 55 by the way? I've just looked, and they appear the same to me - author, book, publisher, etc.

Thanks for the info on the GoogleBooks links - there's more detail here. I'm sorry some don't work in the USA, but as they will work for others outside the USA, it's worth keeping them. SilkTork *^YES! 20:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry for the late reply, I overlooked this comment). It could be that the "consistency" requirement has been too strictly interpreted, but that's likely something that should be addressed more broadly than on this individual review; my comments here are based on the conventions I have observed (and experienced in my own FAC noms). YMMV. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't checked the article yet, but consistency in citation formatting is a requirement of WP:WIAFA. Needs to be done; FAs should have a professional presentation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I just looked up YMMV. That's neat. Yes, we can only advise on our own experience/mileage. Thanks for all your advice, which has been very helpful. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Tim riley

Leaning to support – a few quibbles: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs) 16:51, May 9, 2011}

• • Whose support is this? As far as I can tell, it's Tim Riley's, which means he has supported to twice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

*Lead

• • General: you have a fair few citations in the lead; where these citations are repeated in the main text it would be better to trim them in the lead
  • "Though mainly fields until the 16th century, it was briefly" – what was "it"? A noun needed in this opening sentence of a para, I'd say.
  • "a well-known red-light district" – clear enough to an English reader but I wonder if this phrase is common to English speakers in other continents
  • "traffic congestion" – is the blue link going to be helpful to any reader?
• Early history
  • "the Roman period" – why include the definite article in the piping to the link?
  • "Dr Vince and Professor Biddle" – better to give them their forenames.
• The Bedford Estate (1552–1918)
  • "improved their peerage from Earl to Duke of Bedford" – very odd way of putting it; sounds like an exercise in DIY. Something like "were advanced" or "were promoted" in the peerage would be more orthodox phrasing.
  • "would now hold the land for over 350 years" – does the subjunctive add anything here? Does this just mean they "held the land for over 350 years"?
  • "walled off" – reluctant as one is to overuse hyphens, I think one is needed here.
  • "1625 Proclamation concerning Buildings" – I see why you have italicised, but I think it is inappropriate here.
  • "The Beecham family" – it might be more helpful to link to the article on Joseph Beecham, or even Thomas Beecham#Covent Garden estate.
• Economy
  • The balance of the second sentence is strange: why have the 1979 reference after the 2010 one?
  • "an annual peppercorn rent of one red apple and a posy of flowers for each head lease, and this prevents the property from being redeveloped." – how does the former prevent the latter?
• Royal Opera House
  • "Letters Patent" – why in italics?
  • "premières" – I share your preference for the grave accent in this word, but I believe the MoS disagrees, and decrees somewhere that it is now absorbed into the English language and doesn't need the accent.
• Covent Garden square
  • "site's owners, Capital & Counties Properties to get" – you need to close the subordinate clause with a comma after "Properties".
  • "and Place des Vosges" – this feels not quite right without a definite article.
  • "The centrepiece of the project…" - the word "London" appears three times in this sentence; would the middle reference do as "the city" instead, and the third as "it", perhaps?
  • "Jones' overall design" – as the article is in UK English it would be better to use the British form of the possessive, "Jones's", rather than the US form as here and at later mention. The same applies to Sam Pepys, later in the article.
• London Transport Museum
  • "organization" – but you have "organised" "disorganised" and "finalised" earlier. As the –ise form is the normal UK version I'd stick with that.
• Street performance
  • "are approx 30 minutes" – the abbreviation is inappropriate – "about" is even shorter and better.
• Pubs and bars
  • "CAMRA" – link should be at first not second mention, as now.
  • "The Harp on Chandos Place" – have we really capitulated to American usage? I maintain that "The Harp in Chandos Place" is still the British form. It is perhaps a lost cause, but not yet!
  • It was one time owned – an "at" is missing here.
  • Ampersands – are the "&"s the form used in the pub names?
• Transport
  • "the Strand or the Kingsway" – I've never seen Kingsway get a definite article before, and I think using one is an error here.
• Cultural connections
  • As it stands this section says that Hitchcock's father, not Hitch himself, made the film Frenzy.
  • "activities was" should have a plural verb.
• Notes
  • Note 16 has gone very wrong.

Tim riley (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have fixed ref 16 (it was just a typo, "cite boook" instead of "cite book"). Jenks24 (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Excellent. A very useful and thorough copyedit. I agree with almost everything. You have picked up a number of obvious errors, and also highlighted a few subtle items. On a personal level, I would have been happy for the bulk of the copyedit to have been applied directly as I believe that would have saved you and I a little effort; though I do understand that a culture has developed on GA, FA and peer reviews for copyedits to de done the way you have, so I accept why you have done it this way. The items I haven't changed are: premières because of MOS:FOREIGN; the Kingsway as the phrase is used; Lamb & Flag as it could be either, but is generally with a &; citations in lead - I agree that sometimes lead sections can be over cited; however, in this case, there are very few, and each is placed by a statement that might be questioned. As most readers do not go beyond the lead, it is reassuring for such readers to have a source they can check if they wish, without having to hunt through the body of the article; I have been similarly frustrated myself, and wish that more people would cite the lead appropriately. Thanks for your attention and time. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

support Good. Very pleased to add my support for this excellent, comprehensive and well referenced article. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Jimfbleak

• Support, much improved since my earlier read through. A tourist trap, but still a nice spot to sit in the sun drinking over-priced beer. There should be a bounty on the living statues, but that's another issue Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Casliber

• Support Comments - reading through now. Will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Returning to fields, part of the area was walled off... - aargh, the beginning bit sounds like farmers returning home or something...I can't think of an alternative and actually think the three words can be done away with altogether.

link "Westminster Abbey" actually no big deal.

The first record of the market is in 1654 when market traders set up... - my impression is the second "market" is redundant here.....

Some sentences are repeated through the body of the text. I can see why but I think we can eliminate them with some planning. I will come back to have a go at this. Some subjects are linked twice and others not at all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I sent the cows home, and changed to "After the town was abandoned..." The fields/abandoned is mentioned and the preceding statement regarding Lundenwic is cited in the lead because it is only recently that evidence for the town being in the area of Covent Garden has been uncovered. It was there, and when abandoned it vanished, like a circus moving on. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Right then - this sentence The first record of a "new market in Covent Garden" is in 1654 when market traders set up stalls against the garden wall of Bedford House appears twice - once in the The Bedford Estate (1552–1918) section and then again in the Covent Garden market' bit - we don't need it twice and I will leave it up to you to figure out how to rejig it.

The move to Nine Elms is mentioned three times in the body of the text - can we rationalise to once please? Again, you're familiar with the info so will leave it up to you

The sentence with "Robert Carr" is repeated (I copyedited the first) - can we lose one?

I wonder if there is a reference for the fact that on the tube they often tell you to get off at the stop after Covent Garden on weekends as it is very busy?

Yes - though it's from 2007 and I understand that restrictions have been lifted due to improvements at the station. I'll look some more. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've now rejigged. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

To conclude, prose is good and we should get this promoted this time 'round, but we really need to rework some of the repetitions above. A nice read, I did like the pub stuff....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

• Comments:

• (1) Hi Silk, I'm enjoying reading this, but having two problems with it. First, there's a lot of blue, and a fair bit of it is repetitive (e.g. "listed building" was linked five times), so it would help if you could link on first reference only—not counting the summary-style "see also" links at the start of sections, or links in image captions. Also, link only issues and people directly relevant to the article, and avoid linking ordinary words (e.g. "balcony," "traffic congestion," "stairs"). See WP:OVERLINK.

I dislike overlinking, and have run a few overlink programmes over the article. Thanks for being an alert pair of eyes. Sometimes, when you are familiar with an article, you just don't see them any more, and some of it has occurred when I have copied in a sentence or phrase from other articles - such as the stairs from Covent Garden tube station (which reminds me that I started checking for a source for that statement - "Covent Garden station is one of the few stations in Central London for which platform access is only by lift or stairs" - but never found one. It's a trivial statement and could just go). SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have gone through manually and removed more links. I think those that are left are appropriate. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• (2) There are also a lot of footnotes. For example:

Russell had Bedford House and garden built on part of the land, with an entrance on the Strand, the large garden stretching back along the south side of the old walled-off convent garden. Apart from this, and allowing several poor-quality tenements to be erected, the Russells did little with the land until the 4th Earl of Bedford, Francis Russell, an active and ambitious businessman, commissioned Inigo Jones in 1630 to design and build a church and three terraces of fine houses around a large square or piazza.

The multiple footnotes make the text look cluttered in read mode, and the number of templates make it hard to edit. It would help if the number of ref tags could be reduced—in particular removed from inside sentences, and not added in multiples after sentences.

I have been through and reduced cite tags. There are still a few double tags, though these are due to the sentence containing information which is in two different sources (or, in one case, the second source is a useful plan of Bedford House). Do you feel there is now an appropriate balance between readability and verifiability, or should I look for further reduction? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• (3) You say three or four times that the market halls and several buildings were bought by Capital & Counties Properties in 2006. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reduced this a bit now (it was a lot wasn't it!). It may be able to be reduced a bit more, I'll look further. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This is a lot better now, an enjoyable read, very informative, and nicely laid out. The only remaining two issues are: (a) it's still a little repetitive, so any steps that could reduce that without losing flow would be welcome. For example, in the Economy section, you repeat material from elsewhere (historically built on retail and entertainment, produce market was relocated, etc). If you have to reintroduce material already explained, for reasons of flow, it's best to write it in a way that clearly acknowledges the reader has already seen it. And (b) it's still very blue, but this might be unavoidable given the number of people and places you're introducing. But these issues are relatively minor. Overall it's a fine piece of work. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comments and your advice, which I will carry forward. And especially thanks for your work on the article which is now much improved. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 01:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria

Image review

• St Paul's church or Church?

The name of the church is St Paul's, though it is also shown as St Paul's Church in sources. I have removed the word church from the caption as it's not needed. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Make sure all full-sentence captions end in periods - spotted at least one, there may be others
• File:Civitas_Londinium_or_The_Agas_Map_of_London.jpg: scanning a 2D work does not create a new copyright (corrections might, depending on how extensive they were), so this needs a licensing tag for the original image too (likely PD due to age)

The map and the scan are public domain, and the file used in the article is a derivative of the scan. I used the derivativeFX software which places the appropriate tags on derivative files. If you know for certain it's a problem I will raise it with Luxo, the creator of the software. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the software bases its tags on those present on the file you're deriving from, right? So if the scan is incorrectly tagged, the derivative will be, and that's not the fault of the software. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are saying. The tag on the original file is incorrect. I have updated both files. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• File:1690_bedford_house.jpg: source link is dead

Thanks. Updated. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• /File:LondonWestminster.png: on what data source or PD map is this image based? Same for File:BlankMap-LondonBoroughs.svg and File:LondonCamden.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the png files you mention. Are they used in the article? I took a look and couldn't find them, and the article is not mentioned/linked on the file pages. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The last of these is in one of the navboxes; the first two are root files of another navbox image. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you able to answer your own question? I think you know more about these matters than I do. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the answer. You might try contacting the uploader - presumably they were based on pre-existing maps or some kind of coordinate set, but since I didn't create them I can't say for sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it be quicker and easier getting in touch yourself? I'm not sure I understand the nature of the query, and by the time you've explained it to me you would probably have got the answer from the uploader. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that neither of the users in question have edited within the past year. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Please ping me when images are cleared (and also review for citation consistency, per WP:WIAFA). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have left a message for one user who has recently started editing again - User_talk:Morwen#Map_image_question, and sent both users an email. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• • I have replaced the images in question with images based on OpenStreetMap data which is open data, licensed under CC-BY-SA. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Colonel Warden

Boundary and other comments:

The boundary of the district is debatable and I have started a section on the talk page to discuss this. This is quite a major issue for the topic as it defines and determines its scope. A related issue is the Neighbouring areas of London schematic which positions the district in a grid. I don't like this as it might give US readers the impression that the area is laid out in a grid plan. And it doesn't correspond with the street signage in the area which shows the district to have five immediate neighbours in an irregular pattern: Bloomsbury, Holborn, Soho, Strand and Temple. Those street maps show Finsbury as the major district off to the NE, with Clerkenwell further out.

We should perhaps say something about the pedestrianisation of the area. The paving with cobblestones is unusual for London and so should be mentioned.

I have lots of photos of activity in the area such as the annual congregation of Punch and Judy men and the Christmas Pudding race in the piazza. I'll upload a selection when I get a chance.

Warden (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've joined the boundary discussion on the talkpage.

I am not a fan of the Neighbouring areas grids that are creeping into area articles. However, other than personal dislike, I have not thought it worth removing them. Some people find them useful, and I can understand why. Finsbury is further away from Covent Garden than Clerkenwell. You'd have to go through Clerkenwell to reach Finsbury. However, neither of them actually touch Covent Garden. I've just had a fiddle with neighbouring areas. That could be part of the boundary discussion. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a source which discusses the historic and modern boundaries, so I have amended the boundary section. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

remarks from rm2dance

cumbersome sentence: It is associated with the former fruit and vegetable market in the central square, now a popular shopping and tourist site, and the Royal Opera House, which is also known as "Covent Garden".

the lead is too large

pic on Geography makes it unclear which is Covent Garden -- i guess it's the orange line? you need to photo edit it and make it clear

stylistic preference, don't like semi-colon usage: "reopened as a retail centre; and, in 2010, the largest" -- just "retail centre, and in 2010," -- the extra comma after "and" also breaks the flow of the sentence, reads bad. this is caused by the editor, other articles commonly do not use semi-colons excessively. Economy section already has two usages of it, the rest of the article is fairly clean of it, this must've been one editor's doing. this is inconsistent writing/style, breaks the coherency of the article as a whole.

5.3 Cultural connections -- most times they titled this "Media" or related. cultural connections sounds odd, and makes wikipedia inconsistent.

if there are major companies/shops, they need to be included in '5 Culture'

"The district is divided by the main thoroughfar..." -- it's better to just create an image using a diagramming program, and upload it to show this instead of describing it. it's cumbersome and ineffective. maybe you're able to draw.

"Platform access is only by lift or stairs; until improvements to the exit gates in 2007,[98] due to high passenger numbers (16 million annually), London Underground had to advise travellers to get off at Leicester Square and walk the short distance (the tube journey at less than 300 yards is London's shortest) to avoid the congestion." -- wow this is terrible, completely breaks the flow needlessly, stop using semi-colons please -- what an ugly long-winded sentence -- new phrasing ought to be along the lines of:

actually i have no idea what it's trying to say, it's a mess. i give uprm2dance (talk)

I agree the "platform access" sentence would be better as two sentences, and I changed "and, in 2010" to "in 2010", but left the semicolon. I disagree with the other recommendations offered here FWIW. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia

I found several instances of "currently", "still", etc ... please review for WP:MOSDATE#Precise language, and recast sentences or add as of dates as appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There was quite a lot. I have been through and put in precise dates where appropriate - use of "today" and "current", etc, that is now left is intended for clarity to differentiate between previous structures, etc. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dashes vs. hyphens still needs review ... " when it was called the Cooper's Arms - the name changing to Lamb & Flag in 1833" ... see WP:ENDASH and WP:EMDASH, vs hyphen. The article uses a hyphen there, but later an unspaced emdash: just to the east of Covent Garden square—there are over 30 routes. Pick either spaced endash, or unspaced emdash and be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I can't tell the difference, so when I edit I only use one. I have now got a useful script which automatically sorts them, and I do run it occasionally. I will make a habit of running it after each occasion when I use a dash. I've run it today, so it should be OK. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is this fact cited to 11 pages? Can't it be found on a specific page, or a smaller range? It was designed as a dedicated flower market by William Rogers of William Cubitt and Company in 1871,[68]. In general, citation polish is still needed, left some samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the recommended citation - see the cite link: [4] SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC) I've just checked again on that. The website has recently added a cite drop down menu which offers a Wikipedia citation which doesn't use a page number range as it presents it as a web page citation. I used to present british-history.ac.uk as a webpage, but it was pointed out to me that the source is actually a book, and that I should be citing it as a book, even though I am linking to a webpage - in much the same way that we deal with Google Books page scans. The source is the book, so it is presented as a book cite, and the link is merely there as a handy addition for readers to quickly access the text - if it is possible in their territory. I think it is appropriate to continue to present the british-history.ac.uk texts as book cites, though as I don't possess the book in question, I am unable to work out precisely from which page the information comes. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing publisher; please scrutinize citations thoroughly. 98.^ "Covent Garden London : Getting to Covent Garden by underground". Retrieved 20 May 2011. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Added publisher. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead review

Lead review by Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• "The district is divided by the main thoroughfare of Long Acre, north of which is given over to independent shops centred on Neal's Yard and Seven Dials, while the south contains the central square with its street performers and most of the elegant buildings, theatres and entertainment facilities, including the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and the London Transport Museum." This sentence is MASSIVE. I suggest chopping it apart into two smaller sentences, possibly before "while the south"
• "After the town was abandoned, part of the area was walled off by 1200 for use as arable land" Two problems: First, the two time indicators should be consolidated, preferably into something like "After the town was abandoned in ####, part of the area was walled off for use as arable land." Second, what does "arable land" mean? A wikilink would help.
• "Covent Garden, with the postcode WC2, falls within the London boroughs of Westminster and Camden, and the parliamentary constituencies of Cities of London and Westminster and Holborn and St. Pancras." One-sentence paragraphs make me barf. Please expand, merge, or delete.
• As a whole, the lead section is poorly balanced. It gives far too much information from the History section and not nearly enough from the other sections. As far as I can tell, the current layout has two big paragraphs about history, one standalone sentence about postcodes, and everything else jammed into the first paragraph. Not good!

Thanks for your comments. I am quite comfortable with people making copy edits directly to the article. If there are substantial edits that you feel would either be too time-consuming or controversial, then it would be appropriate to raise them first, but such things as splitting a sentence in two can be done directly. Regarding the sentence with dates. We don't know exactly when the town was abandoned, but we know that by 1200 part of the area had been walled off. I think you're right that the lead could be better balanced, and I will look into that. Any concerns about the content, I would be happy to answer as I have done the research so I have the info. As regards linking "arable land", there have been a number of concerns raised about overlinking, so it might be more appropriate to use a common word. However, I didn't think people would have a problem with arable - it's a word that is used on the Simple English Wikipedia. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.