Jump to content

Talk:Old Chiswick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Old Chiswick/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Starting first read-through. More anon. Tim riley talk 20:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary digression, as one whose family home was in Keswick, Cumbria I take a dim view of other Cheese Farms muscling in, but yours, irritatingly, seems to have got in first. I shall try not to let this prejudice me.

Thanks Tim! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Nothing to frighten the horses, and certainly not worth formally putting the review on hold for.

  • Lead
  • "The street still floods on high spring tides" – this isn't mentioned in the body of the text, and according to WP:LEAD there didn't oughter be anything in the lead that isn't in the main text.
  • Added to Geography, and cited.
  • St Nicholas Church
  • dates from 1882-4 – needs attention from the MoS point of view: full four-figure years and an en-dash rather than a hyphen.
  • Format is now pukka.
  • except for the surviving west tower which was built for William Bordall – could do with a comma after tower, to make the clause non-restrictive (i.e. descriptive rather than defining) otherwise there is the theoretical possibility that there are other surviving west towers that were built for someone else. Yes, I know, but it's as well to be as precise as possible,
  • Added.
  • and an exceptional one in the south chapel – who says it is exceptional?
  • Historic England (aka English Heritage), the citation immediately following; they call it "a very fine monument". Allowing for the dry style of official listings, a jaundiced eye, and English understatement, that is a truly exceptional heap of praise. Repeated the ref just in case.
  • Industry
  • "drawdock" could do with a blue-link or explanation.
  • Linked.
  • Chiswick New Town
  • north-westwards – but you don't hyphenate southeast, southwest and northeast earlier. Either is fine, but it would be as well to be consistent.
  • Fixed.

Try as I may, that is all I can find to complain about. Over to you. Tim riley talk 20:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Tim, I'm glad you liked it! I shall expect an article on Old Keswick very soon! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All fine now, and completely up to GA standard in every respect, in my view (and a thoroughly enjoyable read), so...

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    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:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: