Wikipedia:Peer review/Octavia Hill/archive1

Octavia Hill

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I have expanded it and got it to as high a standard as I can without the input of WP colleagues. The sources are all online: I confess that I have not opened a book in the course of researching the subject, and I have no ambitions to take it to FA, but it might, perhaps, make a respectable GA. Most grateful for any suggestions other editors may wish to make.

Thank you, Tim riley (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: An important and interesting article. One thing that puzzles me is why it is aligned with WP's Christianity project. Here are some suggestions for enhancing the text:-

• Lead
  • First sentence: "particularly" and "especially" don't sit too well together in the same sentence. Perhaps the phrase "particularly concerned with" could be replaced with "whose main concern was".
    • Done. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Small point, but the three lead paragraphs begin, repectively, "Octavia Hill", "Hill" and "Hill". Some variation in style would be preferable.
    • Done. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, I wonder if the lead truly summarises the whole article? It seems to end in mid-air; there is a lot of legacy stuff at the end of the article that does not seem to be covered in the lead.
    • Done - I think. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Early years
  • For the sake of clear chronology, could we have an indication of when the Hill family's financial problems started. It would also be helpful if we had a one-line indication of the source of these troubles: business failure? bad investments? gambling, etc?
    • Done, as to date. No source that I can lay hands on says why Hill senior went bust. It may simply be that he was off his onion, but I cannot say. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Why were the family "moving around the country"?
    • Not sure, and having failed to find a source that says why I have deleted. Peripheral at best. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I would also like to know how, and at what stage in her childhood/youth, Octavia came into contact with the works of Mayhew and Maurice.
    • She read Mayhew (no doubt her mother's or grandfather's copy) when young. Maurice was a family friend - now added. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The section is a little confused as to chronology. How old was she when she began glass-painting, or when she started working for Ruskin? Also, the last paragraph, describing her appearance and character, and her encounter with Frederick Temple, clearly relate the mature Octavia (Temple became Bishop of London in 1885, when Octavia was 46).
    • Done as to her jobs. Bishop Temple's hard time was tricky to fit in. I originally had a "character and reputation" section, but it didn't really work. It seemed to fit here better than anywhere else. I have now made it clear that her duffing up of the Rt. Rev came later. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Housing for the poor
  • "...the first of many tranches of legislation had been passed aimed at improving working class housing." I suggest "...the first of many tranches of legislation aimed at improving working class housing had been passed".
    • Done. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "needful" reads as rather old-fashioned. I'd prefer "necessary"
  • Not "Mr" Ruskin
    • Both above are in a quote (from The Times) and shouldn't be altered. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Rent arrears were not acceptable, and bad debts minimal". I think "tolerated", rather than "acceptable", and "bad debts were minimal".
    • Done. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Octavia Hill system
  • I think this heading breaches the WP rule re section headings: "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article." See WP:HEAD
    • "The Octavia Hill system" or "The Octavia Hill method" is a sort of technical term, used in housing circles, but point taken. I've changed to "Housing management" Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "...its first independent unit, giving training..." The use of "giving" raises a familiar prose bugbear. Probably better as "which gave..."
    • Done. Tim riley (talk)
  • The style of the article has been to write all out number values. This works with numbers such as "fifteen", or even "three thousand", but "one hundred and sixty" looks laboured and wrong. Personally, I think it would be better to use the WP convention of representing values of 10 or more numerically.
    • Having been immersed in old documents I find "one hundred and sixty" looks quite natural, but I'll examine my conscience. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Open spaces
  • "Octavia Hill" should be just "Hill"
    • This was to distinguish her from her (just mentioned) elder sister, but on reflection it is clear without. Done. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • What does "above Buttermere" mean? North of?
    • Clarified. (Literally above - in the fells overlooking it). Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Later years
  • Could there be a brief explanation of the Gladstone veto?
    • Done. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Legacy
  • First sentence: "she made a speech" → "Hill made a speech"
    • Done. Tim riley (talk)
  • Describing Toynbee Hall as "university-based" might mislead readers into thinking that TH was a seat of learning. Possibly "sponsored" rather than based?
    • Done. Tim riley (talk)
  • Can you simplify/split this unwieldly sentence: "This later changed its name to the Society of Housing Managers in 1948, and, after merging with the Institute of Housing Managers in 1965, became the present day Chartered Institute of Housing in 1994."
    • Done. Tim riley (talk)
  • Single sentence paragraphs should be avoided if possible.
    • I agree, but this sentence is needed and doesn't, I think, sit with any nearby para. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, the subject of the article should be consistently referred to as "Hill".
    • Done. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Bibliography: Some of the entries are incompletely formatted.
  • Will revisit. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope you find this review helpful. I wish the article all success. Brianboulton (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for this very thorough review. It is immensely helpful, and I'm grateful. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)