Talk:Covent Garden/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this. Pyrotec (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've had several quick read throughs of this article; and it appears to be comprehensive, well-referenced and well-illustrated. As such, it is generally of GA-standard.Pyrotec (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now part way through my detailed section by section review; and I've tweaked the grammar in places and added a few minor wikilinks. At this point I will only comment on any (minor) problems: trival ones I may well fix as I work my way throught it. Pyrotec (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'History' -
- Early history -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC) - Ref 10 is a published book, part of the Victoria County History series, which is also available on the web in individual sections at British History on Line. As such it has a book title, authors, publication date, volume number and page numbers; and I would expect to this information to be provided in the citation (you may use the citation or cite book template, if you wish, but I'm not insisting on it).[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC) - Ref 13 is a web site which has a personal (maned) author as well as a corporate author: neither of which are named (only the web link and the page name is credited).[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC) - Ref 15 is a published book, part of the Victoria County History series, which is also available on the web in individual sections at British History on Line. As such it has a book title, authors, publication date, volume number and page numbers; and I would expect to this information to be provided in the citation (you may use the citation or cite book template, if you wish, but I'm not insisting on it).[reply]

- The Bedford Estate (1552-1918) -

Ref 23, 24, 25 and 27 are a published book, part of the Victoria County History series, which is also available on the web in individual sections at British History on Line. As such it has a book title, authors, publication date, volume number and page numbers; and I would expect to this information to be provided in the citation (you may use the citation or cite book template, if you wish, but I'm not insisting on it).
Ref 3 is a published book, part of the Victoria County History series, which is also available on the web in individual sections at British History on Line. As such it has a book title, authors, publication date, volume number and page numbers; and I would expect to this information to be provided in the citation (you may use the citation or cite book template, if you wish, but I'm not insisting on it).

- Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The 20th century -

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC) - Ref 28 is not acceptable as it stands. It appears to be wiklink to Survey of London and Wikipedia articles not acceptable as verifiable reference (see WP:Circular). However, it also appears to be a reference to one particular volume (i.e. 36) in a collection of books. If the book is being used as a reference then it should correctly cited (see numerous comments above).[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC) - I'm not sure what is meant by "property"; for example, is it the market hall mentioned in the subsection above, the Bedford Estate as a whole, or the Bedford Estate minus Bloomsbury?[reply]

That is one of the paragraphs remaining from before my involvement. Looking at the source, it refers to the estate as a whole. SilkTork *^YES! 19:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your question again it appears that it is not clear that by this stage the Bedford family are no longer involved in Covent Garden. Should that be made clearer? I have dated the Bedford Estate section, though I suppose it wouldn't hurt to clarify somewhere at the end of the section that the Bedford Estate, which began in Covent Garden, later absorbed Bloomsbury, and today only owns Bloomsbury. I think that perhaps the sale of the estate by 11th Duke needs more detail - I am reading My Covent Garden by Man Dent, a pretty poor book, but it does give some interesting info on the sale, which was seen as somewhat sensational at the time, and generated a lot of media interest. Such detail is more for future development of the article rather than for this review, but I think some highlighting that the property did pass from the Russell family might be worthwhile - do you think? SilkTork *^YES! 19:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with your changes. I needed concise "labels" for my question (and in hindsight I might not have been all that precise, see later), so I used the subsection title as the basis of two labels; there was a short paragraph about the estate expanding, due to marriage, to include Bloomsbury (giving a before and after phase); and the third label was a building. It seems that I totally missed the sentence "In 1913, Herbrand Russell, 11th Duke of Bedford agreed to sell the Covent Garden Estate for £2 million to the MP and land speculator Harry Mallaby-Deeley, who sold his option to the Beecham family for £250,000; the sale being finalised in 1918.[27]". All I needed to ask was does "property" refer to the estate or the building? Pyrotec (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, the previous subsection goes upto 1918 (which is the first 18% of the 20th century); and you can't (constraint of WP:Mos) name the subsection "Covent Garden" something (e.g. "Covent Garden Estate". Perhaps something "vague" such as "Post War changes" would be better. (This is not an "problem" requiring an "Action"). Pyrotec (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Governance -

Ref 31 is a published book, part of the Victoria County History series, which is also available on the web in individual sections at British History on Line. As such it has a book title, authors, publication date, volume number and page numbers; and I would expect to this information to be provided in the citation (you may use the citation or cite book template, if you wish, but I'm not insisting on it).
Similar comments apply to ref 32.

- Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography -

This looks OK.

Economy -

No comments, yet, but I might come back to this one.

Landmarks -

Generally OK.
Just a personal comment. I've only visited Covent Garden once, in the 1980s, I went to the London Transport Museum. It seams "odd" to me to read about the expansion of the The Covent Garden fruit and vegetable market; its closure; and reopening (of the central building) as a shopping centre. [End of subsection], then a new subsection on Theatre Royal, Drury Lane; and finally London Transport Museum followed by St Paul's. I would place London Transport Museum after Covent Garden market, since they both make use of the former fruit and vegetable market buildings, followed by Theatre Royal, Drury Lane and St Paul's. However, its not a requirement of WP:WIAGA.
London Transport Museum, is a summary, and it has a {{Main}} link to the article, so what is given is just a flavour. However, I would (perhaps, its bias on my part) have expected a brief comment on its two-year closure and major refublishment.

Culture, Transport & Cultural connections -

These section look OK.

Pyrotec (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted the cites you've indicated so far and looked through and reformatted the other British History cites. I've also tried a new sub-section name of Modern changes. I'm not quite comfortable with any of the names of the subsections of the History section - and hopefully somebody will come along and find a better way of organising the history section. SilkTork *^YES! 09:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A compreshensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated, article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. It has potential to go further, but I would suggest a period of stability; and a WP:PR, as means of obtaining further views on how this article might be improved, first. Congratulations on getting this article up to GA-standard. Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the review. SilkTork *^YES! 16:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]