Jump to content

Talk:Savile Row/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4


GA check

I am working my way through the Good articles listed at Places; having a quick look to see if they still meet the Good article criteria. I have landed on this article. After I've had a quick look, I'll leave a note here indicating if I have concerns or not.

In general, I see the process as this: 1) Give the article a quick look to see if there are obvious issues: maintenance tags, unsourced sections, excessive media, etc, resolving any minor issues as I do so; 2) If I have concerns, open a GAR to see how serious those concerns are, resolving them myself if they are not serious; 3) If during the GAR I feel that there is significant work to be done (more than I can or am willing to do myself), I will put the GAR on hold and notify the main contributors.

My aim and intention is to keep the article listed - I would rather the article was improved and kept listed than the article is delisted. Where a delisting seems likely due to the amount or nature of work needed being greater than I am able to do alone, and the main contributors are unavailable or unable for whatever reason to do the work, then appropriate WikiProjects will be notified at least seven days before a delisting would take place. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Green tickY. No issues. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't agree there are no issues. It is well researched and referenced but the sections were far too long and I have just edited the article to make it easier to use. It needs a proper map which I will add shortly. The lead is still too long for the length of the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Tailoring

This section is far too long for the article given that there is a main article too. I moved a duplicated section on tailoring from the former second section into the current tailoring section which now need editing to remove duplicated text. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

FAC

As there is current editing taking place which is altering the article, I have suggested closing the FAC. A new FAC (or a GAR if felt appropriate) can be done when the editing is completed. I have taken the article and the FAC off my watchlist so any comments for my attention regarding this are best left on my talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD

The recent edits by User:Philafrenzy have been reverted as too bold per WP:BRD. This is a stable Good Article. Major concerns regarding layout and content should be raised here rather than applied directly to the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. Not too bold at all. This article is in poor shape and not suitable for good article let alone featured. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The very long sections are completely unreadable and far from making it less readable the sub headings make it easier to understand and navigate. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, it is not as bold as you think. All I have done is move things around and a minor trim from the lead. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm being a bit sensitive as you made edits when this was a FAC rather than raise concerns in the FAC, and though I undid those edits citing the guidelines as rationale, you reverted. It was difficult to deal with the concerns raised in the FAC when the article was unstable because of your edits - the comments in the FAC which were using reference numbers, were difficult to apply to an article that was being substantially changed. The basis of your concerns, such that the lead was too long, for example, did not fit well with consensus and guidance on layout, such as WP:Lead. It looked then that you had a personal discomfort with the article, rather than you were looking at it through Wikipedia guidelines, and accepted common practise. The FAC could not continue under those circumstances, so I closed it. The article has now been stable for a while, so I have consulted with several editors on what could be done to improve the article. I am starting to follow their advice, when you return to the article and alter the content such that advice such as this, is going to be difficult to follow. Forgive me if I am a little touchy here. There are several editors working on on version of this article, and it would be helpful if we could all co-ordinate and work together. I am quite happy to work with you on this, or for you to take the lead in applying edits to the article. But could we agree that significant edits are discussed first? And that major concerns are raised on the talkpage rather than through direct action? Could we also agree to work on the version that is already being discussed by User:Johnbod, User:Imzadi1979, and User:Nikkimaria?
As regards section size. Yes, that is always going to be a matter of opinion. The version you edited had sections of size 821 and 1085 words. These are not exceptionally long sections, and a good number of FA articles have sections equally as long, such as 7 World Trade Center, Angkor Wat, Anthony Roll, Beaune Altarpiece, and The Battle of Alexander at Issus - all of these simply taken from the first line at Wikipedia:Featured articles. While short sections are not uncommon, a series of very short sections can inhibit reading flow. The guidance in WP:LAYOUT is "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." and "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading". While I agree it may be helpful to make the History section more digestible, I think the current use of five sub-sections is excessive. I had previously considered if the section could be broken into sub-sections, but couldn't see an easy way to do it. I have at times played around with the idea of having an architectural section, and that would assist in taking some of the weight out of the History section. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. And if you have ideas on how we could develop an architecture section, that would be great.
As regards the Tailoring section. The exact way to deal with the tailoring in Savile Row is problematic, and people have suggested different ways of doing it. There is an opinion that the Savile Row tailoring article be merged back into this one. I suppose it depends on one's view of how much the tailoring is associated with the street. For some people Savile Row is all about the tailoring, and that is how the article was when I first encountered it. It was largely a coat hanger (pardon the allusion!) for promotional material from various Savile Row tailors. The tailoring aspect has to be acknowledged as fairly primary, and readers would expect some detail on that. Exactly how much is always going to be a matter of debate, with some feeling it has too much, while others feel it has too little. So far the consensus has been that it's just about right. Not that the consensus is without challenge, just that there doesn't appear to be a consensus for the amount being too much any more than there is a consensus that it too little. But, please, let's do look at it, and if needed get in more opinions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I was unaware of the FA application and therefore came to it fairly fresh without any preconceived ideas about the article. I am not committed to those particular breaks or section headings or the use of sub heading rather than regular headings. My strong opinion, however, is that an article with a very long lead and only two sections, one of which duplicates content that is in a main article, is simply not correctly structured for readability. I know some people will read very long sections but most want a greater degree of structuring. I might also add that the long historical timespan of the article - hundreds of years - and variety of topics covered, would indicate that more sections should naturally appear. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
On the tailoring, that to my mind clearly warrants a long separate article with a shorter summary here. This article then becomes mainly about the general history of the street as currently dealt with in the top half of the article. If the tailoring is not separate, this will be an enormously long article and everything else important about the street will get pushed out. It's true that people probably come here to read about tailoring, which is why we should give then a short summary and quick redirect using a main tag and plenty of headings so that they can quickly see that this article is not mainly about tailoring. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Tailoring

The size of the tailoring section is going to be a matter of opinion, and has been discussed previously, with - as I say above - some editors feeling that the split-off article Savile Row tailoring be brought back into the parent article. The split-off article is over 6,000 words, and has potential to grow further, while the summary in this article is around 1,000 words; this is fairly typical - indeed, there are a number of summary style sections which are in fact closer in size than that to the split off article. The history and development of the tailoring is complex, and enough space should be given to give justice both to its general importance, and - rather pertinently - to its importance to the street. You haven't given examples of where you feel detail in the section is unneeded, but rather that you feel the amount of space is disproportionate to the overall size of the article. Some specific details would be helpful. Or, if there were more words elsewhere in the article, would you feel that what is said in the tailoring section is OK? Is it the detail that is in the tailoring section that you feel uncomfortable with, or the visual appearance of the article, with the history section looking untidy compared to the rest of the article? SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If I could add some views? The tailoring article is 68 thousand bytes long and surely is too big to just put back in to this article. After all, it was removed and made into a separate article- an article I have lovingly expanded and that, apart from some style and heading issues, is fine, stable, well-referenced and gets up to 120 hits a day. The section on tailoring in this article could be shortened so that this article is purely about SR and its location, history etc., whereas SRT concentrates mainly on the subject of tailoring. That's up to whoever. As long as this distinction is made clear in this article, that's OK? Please do not sacrifice the SRT article and the month's work I put into it to try and prove a point though- obviously it is not my article but I have put a great deal of effort into, doubling its size. Thanks.Richard Nowell (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, the tailoring part of this article could be seen as out-of-date. It mentions that a suit costs £2000 in 2012, whereas the retail price of a Kilgour & French suit in 2014 is £5000 (ref in SRT).Richard Nowell (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
If you have a source for the current price of a suit, please update the article Richard as that would be very useful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Have added ref and half a sentence from The Daily Telegraph giving the price of a French & Kilgour suit. I am presuming that a quote of half a sentence from the DT does not constitute copyright infringement.Richard Nowell (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
History

If there were an architecture section, with some of the architecture detail removed from the history section, would that make it look more readable for you? SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to start an Architecture section, and reduce the sub-sections in the History section, rearranging the images as I do so, so they don't break section headings per MoS. See what you think, and if you can do some research on the history and architecture of the street, that would be immensely helpful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the architecture section. I will try to add more throughout but right now I have reintroduced the sub sections. Your changes basically put it back where it was before and I don't think in that form it provides a good reader experience. There seems to be a section on tailoring in the History section (from nutters) and a large section below. Shouldn't that small part be incorporated in the tailoring section?
I still feel the tailoring section is far too long but am reluctant to edit it as I realise that you have spent a lot of time crafting it. It must be possible, however, to condense it further since there should be nothing in that section that is not in the main? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
BTW, no words were harmed in the making of my edits. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I think the architecture section is an improvement, and is something I had wanted to do for a while. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Section length

The sections are too long in this article and need to be broken down for readability. I have tried to introduce new sections but SilkTork always removes them. The rationale has been explained above. Perhaps someone else could have a go? Philafrenzy (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's borderline, but I would tend to agree that the History and Tailoring sections could use subsections to divide them in half. Maybe the history could get subheadings to divide into "eras" before and after the arrival of the tailoring industry to the street? As for the tailoring section, one could make the argument that there's too much content here given that there is another article it is supposed to summarize, and this article is about the street itself. If it is felt that the balance of content requires this much information on tailoring, I would advise that the section be divided into two subsections, one for the 19th and one for the 20th centuries.
As a follow-on point, I'm used to dealing with various articles on longer roadways, and they almost always have a route description section under some name. For a shorter street, maybe it could be called "Location" and describe the location of the street within London and include the landmarks along the length of the street. I realize that the History section probably lists the notable buildings/tenants, and the Architecture section touches on some of this, but the lead seems to be the only part of the article that really talks about where the street is located. I think I'd write up a paragraph about the location for section 1, follow that with Architecture for section 2, then the History for section 3 (with two subsections to divide the wall of text), the finish with Tailoring (also divided to avoid a wall of text) as section 4 before the standard end sections (references, etc) Imzadi 1979 → 01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, that is roughly what I have done on several occasions before it was removed. The location section has been created using the last para of the lead as the general location is already stated at the top. I have also added a contemporary map. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
On the tailoring, I still feel the section is too long given the existence of the main article. There should be nothing in there that is not in the main and therefore, in my view, it should be cut by about 50%. The focus of the article then becomes the history of the street as it should be. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed if possible. There is conflicting info between this and the SRT article. This article should be about the street as such. Having written that, my interests are about SRT, rather than architecture etc.Richard Nowell (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Nobody here knows more about the tailoring than you so you are the person to trim this and ensure nothing is lost and resolve any conflicting information! Philafrenzy (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou for your appreciation. The thing is, I'd remove most of the tailoring section. There's a whole article on SRT. Like it says at the top of this SR article, this is about the street. The SRT article is only one click away. At least there are few mentions of Beau Brummell, a syphilitic madman. Up to the majority, but now I have to go do the washing up.Richard Nowell (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I think a tailoring section is justified, but at a shorter length. In particular, any conflicts between the two articles should be resolved. The tailoring section here should be a summary of the main, possibly mirroring the lead in the main? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Imzadi1979

Moved from User talk:Imzadi1979 § Savile Row
 – Imzadi 1979 → 08:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@SilkTork: if I were to review the article at FAC now, there are still several comments that would need to be addressed. As I recall, I commented only about formatting in the references, and that's what I'd start with again.

  1. The New York Times is a published work, not the publisher. The publisher of a newspaper is the company that owns it, which is "The New York Times Company". For citation purposes, the publisher is rarely necessary for a newspaper, but the newspaper's name needs to be in italics according to most citation styles. For {{cite news}}, this is accomplished through the use of |work=The New York Times, or its alias, |newspaper=The New York Times. (As they are aliases, there is no distinction made by which parameter name is used.)
    Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. On a related note, television networks/channels, or the divisions of the network, are publishers. So for n30, "BBC News" would stay a publisher if you're citing the News division of the BBC, but if "BBC News" is the name of a program produced by the BBC, then it is a work. To put it another way using an American example, the CBS News division of the CBS network produces a weekly newsmagazine called 60 Minutes, and segments aired on that program, or the online articles published as adjuncts to the broadcast, can be cited like other news articles: Logan, Lara (4 January 2015). "Ending America's Longest War". 60 Minutes. CBS News. Retrieved 7 January 2015.
    Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. In most citation schemes with which I'm familiar, author names are inverted, so again looking at n1, "Paula Deitz" would be rendered as "Deitz, Paula". This can be done by specifying |first=Paula |last=Deitz. This also has the added advantage that the invisible metadata supplied by the references would properly note which is the first (given) name and which is the last name (surname). Of course, such a change is optional, but I'd still note it to bring it to your attention. This was done in n48, so either it needs to be changed to match the others, or the other footnotes should be changed to match it.
    I have checked, and I think the naming is now consistent. As the citation notes are listed in usage order rather than alphabetically, it aids reading to have the authors' names as they appear on the texts. Putting the surname first is helpful when the works are listed separately (and I may do this later - as with Covent Garden) SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Looking at n2, for books, most citation styles with which I'm familiar would call for the inclusion of the place of publication in addition to the publisher. We have |location= for that. As a related note, newspapers like The Telegraph in n27 that lack their locations in their names would also get |location= added as a form of disambiguation.
    I can see the sense in having a disambiguation for journals or newspapers where there may be more than one with the same name, and I will check the article again to see if such disambiguation is needed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Looking still at n2, the volume of the book is noted in the |volume= parameter. That's a perfectly valid way to handle that, however n3 includes it in the title, also a perfectly valid way to handle that. One method or the other should be used consistently though. If you go with the former method, might I suggest |volume=vol. 2 or |volume=vol. II ? The reason I suggest the extra addition is that the templates render shorter volume values in boldface without any indication that it is a volume number, but if you add the additional text, it clarifies that it is a volume number, and the template will drop the boldfacing. (The boldfacing on volume numbers in a journal citation is a bit different because in that case, the volume number is included in a bundle with the issue number [if supplied] and the page number.)
    I started to use the volume parameter, then reverted myself, as the main use in the article of books with volumes is the Survey of London, and British History Online recommend using the volumes as part of the title. I then checked for consistency with other volumes, so that all now appear as part of the title in the citations in the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Still looking at n2, but I'd consider expanding |chapter=IV to include either the title of the chapter, if there is one, and at the vary least, including the word "Chapter". I'd also consider converting the number from a Roman numeral to an Arabic one; most citation styles suggest such a change, and I believe our MOS encourages it as well.
    Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  7. Looking at n5, if you do invert the name, |authorlink=Charles Lethbridge Kingsford |first=Charles Lethbridge |last=Kingsford (unless that's a double barrelled name that isn't hyphenated, of course). For n14, |author1link=Christopher Hibbert |first1=Christopher |last1=Hibbert |first2=John |last2=Keay |first3=Julia |last3=Keay (and optionally |last-author-amp=yes to use an ampersand in front of the last author's name in the list) will provide separate metadata on each author. As it is, they are lumped together in the metadata as a single entity.
  8. On n10 a full date for a book is not customary; the year alone is sufficient. Full dates are only needed for periodicals.
    If the date of publication is given, then I tend to use it. Why would it be problematic to include the full publication date rather than the year? SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  9. Also, a nice touch for n10 would be to add the ISBN, OCLC or another identification number to book or periodical citations. Those IDs are optional, but very helpful to allow readers to find libraries which have copies of the resources. If that journal in n13 has an ISSN, that would be a good addition as well. My usual order of precedence is to add a ISBN/ISSN, otherwise an OCLC number, and finally to omit any ID number if the publication lacks one. ISBNs are assigned to most newer books, ISSNs are assigned to most journals and many newspapers, and OCLCs are a backup ID assigned by libraries.
    I tend to use the ISBN when creating a list of texts used, as in Covent Garden. I will make up a bibliography shortly, using the ISBNs. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  10. On n13, I'd drop the URL and instead reference the article with |jstor= 10.2307/1799748.
    Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  11. On n22, the text "City Management Plan workshop briefing notes" reads to me as either a published "work" of some kind, or a type of document. In either case, it would be better to indicate a publisher, i.e. which city published it, and to render that text in either |work= or |type= accordingly.
  12. It may be more of a personal preference, but for n23, "westminster.gov.uk" doesn't seem like a good stylistic choice. A website can't exactly publish itself whereas the "Westminster City Council" or the "City of Westminster" can publish a website. (This comment wouldn't be valid in cases where a company actually includes the top-level domain as part of its name, like "Amazon.com, Inc.".)
    Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  13. Something else to suggest is the inclusion of |access-date= information for any online source. Other reviewers will say that you can omit that for Google Books, and if the link is included through |jstor=, you can't include the access date. The reasoning for that exception is that Google Books links are extremely unlikely to ever stop working, and the same goes for JSTOR/PubMed/etc. But for a CNBC news article, like in n33, that link will likely go dead at some point when the network puts the article behind a paywall or just removes it from its website. Access dates assist others in locating archived copies through www.archive.org or other services. (As another option, I like to pre-emptively archive online news sources with http;//webcitation.org/archive.php and add that with |archive-url= |archive-date= and then use |dead-url=no to indicate that the original link is still live. At a later date when the link does go dead, a bot or editor can change it to |dead-url=yes or remove the parameter, and the archived copy will be used by the citation template. Look at County Road 595 for an article that does this extensively where possible because of the use of articles from local TV/radio stations and the local newspaper.)
  14. On n34, the "forbes.com" as publisher is either unnecessary (because of the included/cited URL) or incorrect (it's really published by Forbes, Inc.).
    Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  15. On n35, "news.bbc.co.uk" should be the same variation on "BBC News" based on my second comment above.
    Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  16. On n43, The citation to "Style Icon: James Bond | Mens Fashion Magazine". mensfashionmagazine.co.uk. should be more like: "Style Icon: James Bond". Mens Fashion Magazine. The domain name is redundant as in comment 14, and the magazine name should be taken out of the article title and included as the |work= .
    Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  17. The access date on n49 is given as "2013-04-22", when it should be "22 April 2013" to match the other dates' formatting for consistency.
    Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  18. On n65, "Octopus Publishing Group Ltd" can have the "Ltd" dropped. As I was taught by several citation manuals, that can be dropped unless necessary to distinguish between things such as Forbes and "Forbes, Inc." and the like.
    Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  19. One final suggestion, in case you weren't aware, but the citation templates have |via= which is useful to indicate a republisher of content. We have been requested to add such an indication when editors cite to articles republished by Highbeam, and it's a practice I've found useful to indicate that the online copy of a book is being hosted by Google Books or another website. The practice makes it very easy to properly credit the original publisher and still credit the entity that is republishing content online, and the MLA style guide requires a similar indication in citations using that style. For n3, this would look like:
    • MLA: Cork Street and Savile Row Area: Savile Row. Survey of London: Volumes 31 and 32, St James Westminster, Part 2. Ed. F H W Sheppard. London: London County Council, 1963. 517-545. British History Online. Web. 13 March 2013.
    Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • CS1: Sheppard, F.H.W., ed. (1963). Cork Street and Savile Row Area: Savile Row. Survey of London: vol. 31 and 32, St James Westminster, part 2. London: London County Council. pp. 517–545. Retrieved 13 March 2013 – via British History Online.
      • Note: I've properly indicated that Shepherd is the editor, and not the author of the book as well as distinguished that the specific book is part of a series of other books using {{cite book |title= Cork Street and Savile Row Area: Savile Row |url= http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vols31-2/pt2/pp517-545 |series= Survey of London: vol. 31 and 32, St James Westminster, part 2. |editor-first= F.H.W. |editor-last= Sheppard |location= London |publisher= London County Council |year= 1963 |pages= 517-545 |via= ''British History Online'' |access-date= 13 March 2013}}

I hope these comments, while somewhat lengthy, are helpful. Sorry if it took me a few days to get back to you. One last pair of suggestions that related to the rest of the article, just to put them out there, but there is {{infobox street}} that could be added to collect key details from the article into a summary as an adjunction to the lead. There is also {{attached KML}} which can be used to draw an actual line on a map for the route of the street instead of using a single point generated by the geographical coordinates. Imzadi 1979 → 20:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thanks for this. I've been busy off-wiki so unable to respond till now. I'll get cracking on those edits today. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


I'm very confused by the recent additions to the bibliography, and I can't say that I like what I'm seeing. It appears that every source used in a footnote is being listed a second time. If so, why? It just looks like it is adding unneeded clutter that's taking up space without much benefit. It's not as though the bibliography is on a different page from the rest of the content. Listing 60 some sources twice, once in a footnote and once in the bibliography right under the footnotes is a massive waste of space. I can't even justify the space by listing the ISBN/ISSN/OCLC information in the second list when those numbers can just as easily be given in the footnote.

In my experience, most Wikipedia articles have a single list of references, typically in footnote form. If they also have a bibliography, that is a list of sources which were shortened in the footnotes because they were reused in different footnotes. Let's take a look at a different article, M-35 (Michigan highway) for examples. In that article, n5 is to a section of an electronic book by Hunt & Hunt, and n6 is to a different section of the same book. Rather than repeat the full citation to Hunt & Hunt, the footnote was shortened using {{harvp}}, which gives the authors and year of publication with a link to the long citation in the Works cited list below the footnotes. The other books are handled the same way, like in n22 (Rydholm) or n24 (Hyde), but they provide the page numbers instead of the named section.

If the bibliography lists every source used, it's because every citation was shortened, like on SS Edmund Fitzgerald.

Turning back to Savile Row, there's an opportunity to emulate how the Hunt & Hunt book is handled in the M-35 article with how you are handling the Sheppard book here. the first thing that I would do is use {{harvp|Sheppard|1963}} in place of the longer citation in each footnote. for the |pp= value, I'd use |pp= [http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=41492 517–545] or whichever link is appropriate. Then in the bibliography, I'd use {{cite book |editor-last= Sheppard |editor-first= F.H.W. |year= 1963 |ref= harv |url= http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vols31-2/pt2 |title= Survey of London: vol. 31 and 32, St James Westminster, part 2 |location= London |publisher= London County Council |via= ''British History Online'' |access-date= 13 March 2013}} . That would give you something like:

  1. Sheppard (1963), pp. 517–545 harvp error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFSheppard1963 (help)

Notice how if you click the linked "Sheppard (1963)", it jumps to the full citation below which gets highlighted in blue? If you clicked the linked page numbers, that loads the full text, while the title in the full citation links to a page on the overall volume. Since none of the other books have multiple references, you could stop there, or you could shorten all of the book citations, for example:

  1. Strype (1720), p. 84
  2. Sheppard (1963), pp. 517–545 harvp error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFSheppard1963 (help)
  3. Sheppard (1963), pp. 442–455 harvp error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFSheppard1963 (help)
  4. Kingsford (1925), p. 128
  5. "The Pollen Estate – History". The Pollen Estate. Retrieved 13 March 2013.
  6. Sheppard (1963), pp. 495–517 harvp error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFSheppard1963 (help)
  7. Weinreb & Hibbert (1983), p. 772
  8. ...

(Something to note that I discovered in making up this example: what I'd been using as the title of the Sheppard work is not the name of the book. It is the title of a chapter within a specific volume of the overall work, Survey of London. The article isn't consistent in this regard now. If you switch to this Harvard-style referencing, the chapter names aren't relevant and would be discarded.)

Some replies to your comments:

  • Regarding location names, it might be a difference between American and British practices, but my citation manuals (APA, MLA, CMOS) for college/university work always specify that you include the place of publication with the publisher. For newspapers, they specify that if the place of publication is not part of the newspaper name, it's listed with the name. The one exception I've seen is that older books (pre-1900, I think) don't need their publishers, but their place of publication is still given.
    • Note 35 is missing its location; I assume it's The Telegraph from London, and not the one in Nashua, New Hampshire, United States.
  • Books themselves don't give the month or full date of publication normally. Yes, some online catalogs given the month of publication, but my citation manuals don't call for its inclusion. It's a matter of consistency, and if you want to bring this article through FAC successfully, consistency of presentation is just as important as anything else. In other words, someone will ask why some books have just years and others have full dates. At least in the case of the Musgrave work (n45), you've cited the date as 1 January 2010 published by Anova Books, when Google Books says it was published in 2009 by Pavilion.
There was one book cited as being written by the publisher! I have corrected that, and will go through other sources to check on accuracy of dates, publisher and author. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Magazine names aren't all in italics yet, see nn36–38.
  • Date formatting is still not consistent: n57 is the worst offender, but there's also n52 to be fixed.
I think that all dates are now consistent. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Imzadi 1979 → 10:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's very cluttered. I was extracting each source to see what's there and how it looks. The Bibliography is far from finished - it has yet to be sorted and thinned out. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I have fiddled some more, but it's still a work in progress. There are more ISBNs to collect. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Would you have a look at section lengths and give your view as to if they are too long or too short? User Philafrenzy feels the tailoring section is too long, and also feels the history section should be broken up into more digestible sub-sections. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Attempts to break it down a bit have been repeatedly removed by SilkTork. Just what is the problem with sub headings? This article covers 100s of years and a number of different topics. It should naturally have more sections. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Commented above. Also, it's not good form to insert replies within a longer section of comments. It makes it harder at first glance to realize who is saying what. It's marginally more acceptable in a bulleted or numbered list to indent specific replies, but not in the middle of full paragraphs. (It has the effect of disrupting the text and disconnecting the first section of comments from the signature at the bottom. Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Who owns SR?

I have added a paragraph about the fact that the Norwegian Sovreign Wealth fund now owns 57.8% of the Pollen estate, which includes SR. References from the New York Times.Richard Nowell (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If you know about this, can you sort out the section in the location para that states the freeholder for the whole street is Pollen. It seems to me that there are probably a variety of freehold and leasehold owners now. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Moved that info to 'Location'. Who owns what freehold on individual buildings is beyond the article's remit, surely? The Pollen Fund has sold off a large chunk of itself: the Norwegians have bought that large chunk. Who owns what is a complicated matter to say the least... Richard Nowell (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed we don't need excessive detail but we do need to make clear the major owners and if applicable distinguish between freehold and leasehold owners, though that last might be tricky. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Savile_Row/Archive_4&oldid=1087813102"