Wikipedia:Peer review/Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford/archive1
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's close to FA-status (as do a couple of others who have kindly helped to improve it or who have commented upon it), and I'd like some further fresh eyes on what's needed for the final push at FAC.
Thanks, BencherliteTalk 23:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I agree this looks close to ready for FAC, but I think that it still needs some work before then - here are some suggestions for improvement.
- I would make the lead image (map) larger as it is a bit too small to read easily on my monitor now. Also, what is in the southwest corner (where the North arrow is)?
- There are places where it would help to provide a bit more context to the reader - for example the map shows the college is between Market and SHip Streets today, but I would make clearer in the "Buildings in 1571" section that it is still on the original site. I also wonder if it would help to add the word "founder" to the caption of the protrait of Hugh Price.
- Is "Buildings in 1571" the best section header here? Perhaps something like "Founding and original buildings (1571)" or "Original buidings (1571)"?
- Could some sort of color or highlighting be added to File:Ralph Agas map of Oxford 1578.gif to show where the college is on the 1578 map?
- The caption for File:Engraving Jesus College 1675.jpg could be clearer - what street is shown in the foreground? Is the chapel shown on the right?
- Could years (ranges) be added to the (sub)section headings?
- The {{inflation}} template might help with giving the up to date values of the various amounts raised and spent in building the college.
- I would identify the first quad on the right side in the caption for File:Engraving Jesus College 1740.jpg
- It might be the late hour for me, or the fact that I am tired and a bit ditracted, but I think there are several places where some sort of topic sentence / brief introduction to the section would help comprehension very much. For example, when talking about the first quadrangle, it seems to have just sort of been made haphazardly over centuries, without a clear plan from the start. If that is the correct understanding, then I think adding a sentence or two at the start of thesection that explained that would help (show the view of the forest before focusing on the trees). SOme of this is in the lead, but it would help to have the information repeated in the body of the article. This is done nicely in the case of the second quad with Francis Mansell, who was appointed principal in 1630, raised hundreds of pounds from donors towards the building of a second quadrangle in 1640.
- I also think that adding a brief note as to whether the building described still stands today might help make things clearer - so when talking about the original buildings if none of them are still extant, I would say that (At the time of the college's founding, it had X buildings, none of which survive today) and when the first quad is described, I would make clear if the series of low two story buildings survives (even if greatly modified) today.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)