Wikipedia:Peer review/Senedd/archive1

Senedd

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has already passed as a Good Article, but I would hope that it can become a Featured Article one day. The major problem really is that I don't think that "its prose is engaging or brilliant or of a professional standard", therefore I could do with all the help I can get.

Thanks, Seth Whales (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The building is interesting, the images fetching. I have quite a few specific suggestions about the overall layout and the prose through "First selection process". I agree with other reviewers that the lists should be turned into prose if possible, but I think it would also be wise to compress some of the material in other ways as well. It takes a lot of wading through process to get to the building. It's a case of too many words chasing too few core ideas. For example the third paragraph of the lead says: "The 5,308 m² (57,135 sq ft) Senedd was constructed in two phases; phase 1 was between March 2001 and July 2001 and phase 2 was from August 2003 until it was handed over to the National Assembly in February 2006. Phase 1 ended when the National Assembly terminated the contracts of the Richard Rogers Partnership and the main contractor, Skanska. A new management structure was introduced for phase 2, with the main contractor, Taylor Woodrow Construction, reporting to project managers, Schal International Management Ltd, who in turn reported to the National Assembly via the Project Board. The Richard Rogers Partnership were still the main architects, but where they had reported directly to the National Assembly, in phase 2 they report to Taylor Woodrow Construction as a subcontractor." I think most readers would be more satisfied with "The Senedd was constructed in two phases, the first in 2001 and the second lasting from August 2003 until February 2006. Between phases, the National Assembly changed contractors and the project's management structure but retained the original architectural firm." The main text sections can and should include much more detail than the lead, but even there it's good to aim for the minimum number of words necessary to convey the essential information. What is essential and what is peripheral is to some degree subjective, but my main suggestion for this article is to aim for concision.

Done.

Layout

The large number of attractive images is instantly apparent, but so are a couple of associated problems. The Manual of Style frowns upon text sandwiches of the sort found in "Design selection process". This one can be fixed by moving the box on the left down or the illustration on the right up so that the text is not squeezed between them.

Done.

The multiple images seem fine up to a maximum of three wide, but the four-wide multiple "Shortlisted sites in the second selection process" squeezes the text too much, in my opinion. Much nicer, I think, is the block of four, "Shortlisted sites in the first selection process". I'd suggest making the four-wide multiple into a block of four to give the text a little more breathing room.

Done.

The block of color in "Timeline of cost increases and time delays" might be a bit too much, and I don't think all those words at the bottom of the table should be bolded. Bolding quickly loses its effect. I think the meaning conveyed by the table will be clear with no coloring and far less bolding.

Bold removed and I have toned down the colours, but I have kept the colours to still show the 2 phases of construction.

The image of the Pierhead Building is too big for its section and on my screen overlaps the section below.

Moved into single group of 3 images.

Lead

"The total cost of the building was GB£69.6 million, which included £49.7M in construction costs and was opened by Queen Elizabeth II on 1 March 2006." - Suggestion: flip these so that the opening date precedes the cost.

Done.

"The 5,308 m² (57,135 sq ft) Senedd was constructed in two phases... " - WP:MOSNUM says to spell out the primary units and abbreviate the secondary units in most circumstances. Thus this should be "5,308-square-metre (57,130 sq ft) Senedd... ". I like to use the {{convert}} template because it spells and abbreviates according to MOSNUM recommendations, and it does the math. It's possible to add a rounding parameter or to add |adj=on if the expression requires a hyphen, as this one does since it's an adjective modifying Senedd. Also, shouldn't the imperial unit come first; i.e. 5,308-square-metre (57,130 sq ft)?

Done..I think

First selection process

Date autoformatting is deprecated by the Manual of Style. Thus 31 July 1998 in the "The Government of Wales Act 1998 was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and was granted Royal Assent on 31 July 1998" should not be linked.

Done.

"Before the referendum took place, the Welsh Office asked Symonds Facilities Management (later known as Capita Symonds) to investigate possible sites for a new Welsh Assembly, both vacant and possible new build sites in Cardiff." - Something's amiss in this sentence. It might be better to end the sentence after "Welsh Assembly". I don't know what to do with the last phrase because I'm not sure how vacant sites in Cardiff might differ from new build sites in Cardiff.

Done.

"had reduced these down to a shortlist of five sites" - Delete "down"? Ditto for other instances of "reduced down" in the article?

Done.

The Manual of Style suggests that, where possible, lists should be rendered as ordinary prose. This one could be reduced to "In making their decision they considered the need for a space of 80,000 square feet (7,400 m²) that would be ready to use by May 1999. The building was to be of appropriate stature, location and quality with good access for the disabled and good staff accommodations." Or something like that. You could add a few more details, but I would avoid including unnecessary detail.

Done.

"The move to Cardiff City Hall would have also avoided a disruptive move for Welsh Office staff etc. at the Crown Building." - Delete "etc."?

Done.

"Ron Davies, MP." - Spell out and abbreviate on first use, thus: "Member of Parliament (MP)"?

Done.

"In October 1997, both the Welsh Office and Cardiff Council agreed to the District Valuer providing an independent assessment of the market value of Cardiff City Hall and the relocation costs of staff etc." - "... Council agreed that the District Valuer should provide... "? Also, delete "etc." here and everywhere else it appears. It's almost always better to say exactly what "etc." stands for or to omit it. Since the article already leans toward too much detail, deleting "etc." seems the better option.

Done.

"A final offer of £3.5M was made by Ron Davies and the Welsh Office on 24 November... " - The Manual of Style suggests that unless the meaning would be unclear, only the last name should be used on second and subsequent references. Thus it should be "Davies" rather than "Ron Davies" from here to the end of the article.

Done.

I hope these few comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. I am in the middle of making more changes before it goes to FA Nomination. Seth Whales (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]