Wikipedia:Peer review/Queen's Hall/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having overhauled this article I think it might now be a possible candidate for GA, and would be most grateful for any comments here on balance, prose and referencing and indeed anything else. Tim riley (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: I can't do a full review at the moment, but here are a few thoughts:
- In my view the article is potentially well above GA standard and you should aim higher
- In the lead I would combine the first and second paragraphs
- Also in the lead, I'd look again at the sentence beginning "These two ensembles..." which, as presently constructed, has rather too many commas.
- Background: Most of this section is concerned with the building of the hall and particularly its decorative features. I don't think this qualifies as "Background". The background to the creation of the hall is confined to the first two paragraphs; it may be possible to expand these. The remainder should be in a section entitled "Construction" or some such.
- Early years: There is a link available to Band of the Coldstream Guards
- You can also link smoking concert
- Promenade concerts: I find this wording unsettling: "Prices were up to five times lower than those customarily charged..." I think it's the dying fall in "up to five times lower...". How about "Prices were as little as a fifth of those customarily charged"?
- Other presentations: "On 14 January 1896, the first public film show was presented..." Please amplify. First public film show anywhere? Or just in Britain?
- Early 20th C: A private bugbear - journals don't write themselves (The Musical Times wrote...) This or similar occurs several times
- First world war etc: Link Zeppelin
- Same section: in view of your global readership, you need to explain "the newly-established BBC" rather than forcing such readers to use the link.
- Second World War: Graphically done, but I found the leap from the smouldering ruins and burnt-up instruments of May 1941 to the different world of 1954 a little abrupt. I think there needs to be a short linking paragraph between the present second and third paragraph.
I know this isn't a complete review, but I hope you'll find these few points helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent - many thanks. I'll work through these points over the next few days. Tim riley (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- All above suggestions acted upon. I am most grateful (and also for the suggestion of going for FA, on which I'll ponder). Tim riley (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)