Jump to content

Talk:The Angel, Islington

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Angel, Islington has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starThe Angel, Islington is part of the List of London Monopoly locations series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 29, 2015Good article nomineeListed
May 17, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Pub vs. District

[edit]

Willey [1], Mills [2] and the London Plan [3] refer to the district as "Angel" rather than "The Angel". MRSC (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Angel, Islington/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 08:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Starting first read-through. More soonest, Tim riley talk 08:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments

[edit]

This is an enjoyable and well-sourced article, which will meet the GA criteria, in my judgement. A few preliminary quibbles:

  • Lead
    • "site of the Angel Inn from the 16th century, is on lands belonging to the Clerkenwell Priory and has been rebuilt several times between the 17th and 20th centuries" – this sentence goes off the rails twice. First, it seems to say that the site still belongs to the priory, which I don't imagine has been so since Henry VIII nationalised the monasteries. Secondly, the site has not been rebuilt: the buildings have. I recommend splitting this sentence in two, one dealing with the former ownership of the site and one dealing with the rebuildings across the four centuries.
Done - I mostly rewrote this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early history
    • "The first building in this area of London" – very hard to prove a negative, I know, but are the sources quite clear that the Sheepcote was the first building rather than just the first one we know about?
I think this was the first building documented in the sources - it's unlikely to be the first one ever, so I've redone this bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was being used as an inn" – the last noun before this was the parish boundary. We need a new noun here – the site or some such.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17th – 18th century
    • "The inn acquired a significant reputation" – what did it signify? A pity to waste "significant" as a mere synonym of "considerable" or "popular".
I've removed this - the mention of Hogarth and the drawing (put in after this text if I recall correctly) is a more neutral way of describing the same thing Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "of what is now Islington High Street and Pentonville Road" – is it only the High Street that is the complement of "is now"? If Pentonville Road is included as well, we need "are" rather than "is".
Added "the junction of" which clarifies this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a monument on Islington High Street" – use of the Americanism "on So-and-so Street" rather than the traditional British "in So-and-So Street" seems uncalled for and regrettable, here and elsewhere in the article. I notice this Americanism gaining ground in England lately, but let us resist the invasion as long as possible. Your call, of course, as "on So-and-so Street" is not actually wrong – merely alien.
Well to me, "x in Islington High Street" implies it is physically on the road surface eg: "a traffic island on ...." or "get in lane markings on..." - does that make sense? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19th century
    • "In 1880, the Angel was refurbished internally for future large-scale pub owners William Henry and Richard Baker" – this is a false title with a vengeance; the pain can be removed by turning the order round: "… for William Henry and Richard Baker, who became large-scale pub owners".
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A panel on a secondary floor balcony" – what is a secondary floor? If it means the second floor, best just to say that.
It's me making a typo :-) - fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The station has some of the longest escalators on the London Underground system" – true, but this information doesn't belong in the 19th century section. Until a big redevelopment 20 years or so ago there were only lifts (and damned slow they were!)
Since this has nothing to do with the building, I've removed it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cultural references
    • "until its gentrification in the 1980s" – you must go by your sources, of course, but I'd say the gentrification of Islington was well under way in the 1960s.
Tim Moore's book says, on the page cited, "This part of Islington, gentrified so ruthlessly in the last twenty years" - as that was published in 2003, that makes it verifiable to 1980s. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "only site on the board named after a building" – I'd be inclined to omit this or add a footnote. (King's Cross, Marylebone, Fenchurch Street and Liverpool Street stations are also buildings that are sites on the board.)
Well technically the stations are multiple buildings, sheds and railway platforms. And isn't a "Water Works" a building of sorts? More to the point though, the plaque (and the source verifying it) says the Angel was the only building. I suppose we could change the inscription to a direct quotation? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. No need to put the review on formal hold for such minor and easily dispatched queries. Over to you. Tim riley talk 12:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Is there anything left here to deal with?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All that's left is so minor that I can, without impropriety, tidy it up. I'll do that and then pass the article for GA. But thank you, Doc, for looking in. Tim riley talk 08:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed all the issues one way or another. Sorry, I didn't get in from the recording studio last night until 1am and I'm cream crackered :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drat! I was hoping to change all your "on" x Streets to "in" while you weren't looking. I hope the recording went well. Meanwhile...

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:

Excellent job. We Islington dwellers are in your debt. Tim riley talk 17:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Angel, Islington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was this the building Angel Inn run by smith

[edit]

This image of a painting by Pollard? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/James_Pollard_%281792-1867%29_-_The_Royal_Mail_Coaches_for_the_North_Leaving_the_Angel%2C_Islington_-_T02366_-_Tate.jpg 82.23.30.154 (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Angel,_Islington&oldid=1228332765"