Talk:Battersea Town Hall/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 17:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Pleased to pick this one up and sorry you've had rather a wait. Should certainly be through in a few days. KJP1 (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@KJP1: Thank you. (I'd forgotten I'd nominated it ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

All very good points so far; thank you; very much appreciate you taking the time to weigh each word & consider each sentence. I'll start addressing the points late tonight. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I like articles about buildings! And it's rather nice to have something productive to do on here in these unhappy times. Some are suggestions and there is, of course, no obligation for you to take them on board. And no hurry, either. I hope to complete this today. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Same. There's also Battersea Central Library, just down the road. Possibly not GA yet ... tails off around 1900 ... but should you want more Mountford/Battersea from much the same stable, all your thoughts on that welcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Not (quite) fallen asleep, KJP1 ... just getting some more images. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

No hurry - whatever time is needed. KJP1 (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've changed The Builder vol. 61 to a URL that should give you access. And Haworth Tompkins, via twitter, have agreed to let us use one of their images - although I'll need to get them to confirm via OTRS for that to stick. So, progress. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

Articles passes quick-fail assessment. Main review to follow.

Main review

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose): The standard of prose is high and I'll be happy to Pass on this, subject to consideration of the comments below.

General

• I know you're aware of it, but having another article, Battersea Arts Centre, covering the same building seems a little odd to me. But I appreciate the latter focuses more on its cultural role and it's certainly no problem at GAR.

• Noted: yup; ideally that one will focus on BAC as an organisation (and perhaps the adaptations it has made to the building).

• Again, not a GAR criterion, but any reason for not using an infobox?

• Changed: I've added one by way of experiment. Main objection is the space it steals from the ability to deploy images. As you'll see, the population table has had to go to the left side. I'm not precious about any aspect of the article (I hope) although I do like the line drawings. Let me know what you make of the revised layout and make any suggestions for improvement.

Lede

• "in the 1891–1893 period" - is this a 'period'? Perhaps just "erected between 1891-1893?

• Changed: now "between 1891 and 1893"

History - Background

• "when the Battersea vestry regained autonomy" - this implies they'd previously had autonomy. May well be the case - I've no idea - but just wanted to check.

• Changed: Paragraph has been revised to explain briefly the history of local government; probably reads better as a result. It was a reversion of control.
• To Do: need to recheck refs in this para

• "known as the Mellish House" - the definite article here is rather American in its usage. Just "Mellish House"?

• Changed: now "small Georgian property, Mellish House, at 68A Battersea Rise."

• "Battersea's ambitions were an expression of the extreme civic pride" - this reads just a little POV'ly. Was their pride really 'extreme'? "Growing/developing", or something, perhaps?

• Changed: for the time being, I've removed the word 'extreme' and not replaced it.
• To Do - there is a reference in https://oro.open.ac.uk/18803/1/pdf02.pdf to the radical nature of the Vestry; can that be worked in?

• "which looked, for models, back to 15th Century Italian city republics and the Hanseatic League". Links, and a lower-case 'c' for Century?

• Changed: per your suggestion ... also 15th-century - note hyphen.

• "increasingly splendid symbols of their puissance" - is "puissance" unnecessarily obscure? "power/importance", perhaps?

• Changed: to 'their power and importance '

• "Birmingham Town Hall trumped by Liverpool St. George’s Hall, whose glory was stolen by Bradford St. George’s Hall, which was in turn trumped by Leeds Town Hall". - Is it possible to have a source for this quote?

• Done: It's from a Tristram Hunt lecture, quoted in a BAC document. Check that you're happy with the style of the ref.

• "arts & crafts and vernacular elements" - links?

• Done

• "this modesty reflected London boroughs smaller sizes" - perhaps, "this modesty reflected the smaller size/extent of the London boroughs, ..."?

• Done

History - Development

• "all south of the main east-west railway lines that divide the borough" - "that divided the borough"?

• Not done: they still divide the borough => not past tense

• "A competition was held" - not a prose point, but if you wanted a direct cite for the competition, it's in "Victorian Architectural Competitions: An Index to British and Irish Architectural Competitions in The Builder, 1843-1900", by Roger H. Harper. {sfn|Harper|1983|p=108}

• To Do - additional ref

• "as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography puts it" - link?

• Done

• "he had much time to dedicate to entering design competitions" - perhaps, "he had ample time to enter design competitions"?

• Changed to: he had ample time to dedicate to design competitions.

• "the building was opened - if not entirely completed - by the same time in 1893" - worth mentioning it was opened by Lord Rosebery, Chairman of the LCC?

• Done

Description

• "The town hall is built on a sloping site falling northwards from a 160 foot (49 m) site frontage on Lavender Hill" - do you need the second "site"?

• Done

• "a front 2-storey municipal building".

• Done

• "In a communication to The Builder" - link?

• Done

• "Mountford described the design intention as "essentially English Renaissance" - not quite sure what the "intention"'s doing? And am wondering if there's a suitable link for 'English Renaissance"? Renaissance Revival architecture / Queen Anne style architecture / Arts and Crafts movement#Architecture / Edwardian Baroque architecture??? Historic England goes for "free Classical" which I'm not sure is that helpful. Pevsner doesn't even attempt a categorisation!

• To Do There does seem to be a confusion of terms used to describe the style. Baroque Revival architecture also. I'll come back to this. Actually, per your next point, Mountford describes the building as "essentially English Renaissance though perhaps treated fairly freely".

It's a puzzle. I sought the advice of User:Giano and User:Johnbod, and their considered view was that 'Free Classical', as per English Heritage, was probably best. Though Johnbod would go with Baroque Revival for the frontage. But, unfortunately, Free Classical doesn't have a link. It's such a mongrel style that's it's really hard to describe it - which is probably why Pevsner doesn't try! KJP1 (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• To Do: the word 'intention'. Is it doing anything?

• "The thoroughly well lighting of every part of the building" - I can't access the source, getting a Google 403 error, but this reads rather oddly. Is it a reference to a Lightwell, or does it mean something like "the thoroughly efficient/effective lighting …."?

• Comment Probably the latter ... it's a direct quote, so not inclined to change it.
• To Do: See if I can amplify / clarify the lighting point somewhere in the text.

• "a committed blending of the architectural" - what was particularly "committed" about it?

• Removed. I probably picked that up from the ODNB biog of Mountford - "He was committed to the association of sculpture and painting with architecture,"

• "Relief sculptures by Horace and Paul Montford" - again, not prose, but the relevant Pevsner could be used as a direct cite for Paul Montford, although it doesn't mention Horace. London 2: South. {sfn|Cherry|Pevsner|2002|p=670}. It actually has a few useful bits. I could mail you the extract if you wanted.

• To Do: Thanks. I have the said Pevsner; but hadn't thought to look at it. Will do.

• "The glass dome above the octagonal hall features a garden-pattern in shades of yellow" - what's a "garden-pattern"? "depicts a garden scene, in shades of yellow"?

• To Do: need to track down a description of this. It doesn't depict a garden scene. Maybe 'a floral pattern'.

• "single bay curved-cornered pavilions" - I found this a bit of a mouthful! Perhaps, "and single-bay pavilions on the curved corners"?

• Changed: to 'single bay pavilions with curved-corners'

• "a grand staircase bifurcates and rises to a gallery on three sides" - again, unnecessarily obscure. "divides"?

• Changed: puissance, bifurcate ... all my favourite words lost :(. Changes to 'divides'

Further development

• "not least, the building was closed for three months in 1897" - not sure the "not least" is necessary.

• Done: 'not least' removed

• "albeit in practise some difficulties were encountered requiring compromises in providing adequate access to the new rooms" - perhaps, "although practical difficulties necessitated compromises in providing adequate access to the new rooms"?

• Done: per suggestion

Repurposing as Battersea Arts Centre

• "The new council sought to in 1966-7 to replace the front section of the building" - Perhaps, "In 1966-1967, the new council sought to replace...."?

• Done: per suggestion

• "swimmingpool" - I think that's two words.

• Done: per suggestion

• "a combination of the Victorian Society, a new Battersea Society, as well as Nikolaus..." - "a combination of the Victorian Society and a new Battersea Society, as well as Nikolaus.."?

• Done: per suggestion

• "who thought Battersea a much finer building than Wandsworth's grey town hall" - is Wandsworth Town Hall particularly grey? I see it is, actually!

• Comment: Yes. Wandsworth doesn;t actually get a huge amount of love in this article.

• "The charred remains of the hall's wall panelings have been left in place; together with myriad other interventions throughout the building by architects Haworth Tompkins, a "magical place that revels in the rich patina of its history" has been created, according to The Guardian, which placed the town hall in its Top 10 architecture of 2018 feature" - a looong sentence. Perhaps something like, "The charred remains of the hall's wall panelling have been left in place. This innovative approach, together with other interventions by architects Haworth Tompkins, has created a building which The Guardian, including the town hall in its list of the Top 10 buildings of 2018, described as a "magical place that revels in the rich patina of its history"?

• Done: per suggestion

Heritage listings

• "listed as a Grade II* protected building" - it may be right, but I've never heard a listed building being described as "protected", although they are, of course. Perhaps, the more usual, "was designated a Grade II* listed building"?

• Done: per suggestion

b (MoS):

• MoS isn't my forte but it all looks fine to me.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references)

• Refs all look fine. A minor point. Does Smith, refs. 6 and 24, need a "ref=harv" in the Sources section? It doesn't do the "jumping" (from cite to Source) that sfn does well, and which I get, for example, with Saint.

• Fixed - correct, the cite needed ref=harv

b (citations to reliable sources):

• As indicated above, the only one that doesn't work for me is Statham, The Builder, Source 13, where I get a Google 403 error. Any ideas? I thought it might be my pc, but I've tried on the laptop and the iPad and none of them can get the link. Apart from that, they all check out fine. If you wanted to, you could authorlink Andrew Saint in the Sources.

• Fixed - changed URL

c (OR):

• No indication of OR.

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):

• Earwig gives 24% but it's just repetition of phrases/quotes. All good.

3. It is broad in its scope

a (major aspects)

• Broadly, I think it properly covers most of the major points of the building's history, design and construction and current use. However, a bit of reading around the subject, (God, this reminds me of what Wiki can be), throws up this [1], which mentions its role in the birth of the suffragette and labour movements. It would be interesting to know what that role was. And also this, [2]. I wonder if a bit on the election of Britain's (others say London's) first black mayor, John Archer (British politician), would be worth mentioning. I know you have him in Heritage listings, where I'd lowercase the M of mayor, but it's so notable for 1913, I think I'd have it in the history. A little on these important early 20th century events would seem appropriate. Some possible sources: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. And the commissioning of Britain's first council estate, [9]. And speeches by Allen Ginsberg and George Bernard Shaw!

• Mayor -> mayor done
• To do What usage / social history can be added & where.

Perhaps a section before Repurposing entitled, something like, “Social and political milestones/activity”. You could then wrap in first BAME mayor, suffragettes, rise of Labour, council housing, Shaw, and possibly even Ginsberg. It wouldn’t need to be long, but it does have some important “firsts” which I think should be recorded. 18:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thinking of providing more Background context along the path of Sydney Webb & Socialsm in England (Municipal Socialism) [10], the Progressive Party (London) which dominated the 1889 onwards Vestry and then the 1900 Metropolitan Borough, which espoused a wide programme of polytechnic & libraries & bathhouses & Latchmere estate & direct works, of which the Town Hall was one fragment proviing meeting halls and space for machinery of local government ... to give a flavour of the radical aspirations in Battersea, the better to justify a section on social & political milestones achieved. (Charlotte Despard seems to be the local WPSU angle.) Equally, wary that some of this content probably sits better on Metropolitan Borough of Battersea (which itself needs some love). Need to avoid contrived linkages between the hall and some of the above. Expect another week or so of tinkering and we'll see where we are by then. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

b (focused):

• No straying from the central subject.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy

• Wholly NPOV.

5. It is stable

• No issues.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Again, not my forte but they look fine to me.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• Very nice. I might include one interior shot - there are some nice ones of the dome on Commons. What would be really good is the reconstructed Grand Hall photo in the Guardian articles - not that I'm suggesting you lift it! This, [11], has some gorgeous shots. Captions all fine.

• Plethora of additions here - you might want to recheck; possibly there are now too many images?
• To Do get OTRS for the HT grand hall image. Where to put it?

7. Overall:

• A fine article on an interesting and important civic building. I particularly liked the section on the motivations - the growth of municipal pride. As I said above, some of the above are comments for consideration, so reject them if they don't work for you. Placing on hold now. Ping me when you've done and I'll come back to cut the ribbon. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The more I read about Battersea Town Hall, for which many thanks, the more I think you've got an FA on your hands. KJP1 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon - I can see Bluemoonset's point. It's a Good Article now, so shall pass on that basis. As we've discussed, there's definite FA potential but that can wait for another day. Look forward to seeing it at PR/FAC. Congratulations and all the best - I learnt a great deal from this and it as a pleasure to review. KJP1 (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Status query

Tagishsimon, KJP1, where does this nomination/review stand? The last post here was over five weeks ago by Tagishsimon, indicating that there were edits to come, yet there haven't been any edits to the article since that post. Has this nomination stalled permanently (in which case it should probably close), or will action be resuming in the near future? Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Tagishsimon - Sorry, BlueMoonset, I know this is taking a bit longer than normal. The fault’s mine as, sensing real potential, I suggested that some of the historical content could be expanded. It is actually fine to go as a GA now, but I think there’s FA potential as it’s such a seminal building in a number of ways. I’m sure Tag will be back to it very soon.

While I have you on, are you ok with a similar wait on Plan of Saint Gall? It’s another great article, User:Usernameunique has been really helpful, and again it could really pass now. But the main author’s finishing off some university work and I’d like to give them the opportunity to finalise if that’s ok. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

KJP1, if both articles fully meet the GA criteria now, I don't understand why they aren't listed as GAs. You can certainly continue to work with the editors on improvements that will make the articles even better and come closer to the FA criteria in the weeks ahead even after GA status is conveyed. On the other hand, if any of the areas being worked include improvements needed to fully meet one or more of the GA criteria, from grammar and typos to something more involved, then by all means keep this (and/or the other one) open while the editors continue their (sporadic due to other commitments) work on your suggestions. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)