Talk:Bedford Park, London/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Liam2520 (talk · contribs) 12:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I will review this good article nomination.

Many thanks for taking this on. I'll be out of office for some days from Friday so there could be some delay in completing my replies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Observations

I am generally happy with this well-written article, but there are two points I would like to clarify.

Fashion

Section 2.1, Last Paragraph. "By 1888, the area's fashionability was declining"... [Quote from The Woman's World]. Does that statement sound too strong on the basis of just one quote? I don't think the area's "decline" is mentioned anywhere else in the article. Is there any other proof that by 1888, the area's fashionability was declining? If not, see if the paragraph can be re-worded to inform the reader that the area's fashionability was declining just according to Miss M. Nicolle and The Woman's World, edited by Wilde. I just find the claim too strong otherwise.

Reworded to make the attribution clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Significance

Section 2.2, Last Paragraph. Can The Sporting and Dramatic News be wikilinked to Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News? Are they different things? Ian Fletcher in his book you cited called it "The Sporting and Dramatic News", but they sound too similar to be different.

Liam2520 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they're surely the same. The word "Illustrated" is printed in much smaller type on the cover. Linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Pass

I believe this article to satisfy all of the good article criteria.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Article followed the MoS, and I did not find any grammatical issues.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   References are accurate and reliable. No plagiarism or original research found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article is broad and focused. Linked to separate article for architecture.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article followed a neutral point of view, and the facts are verifiable with reliable sources provided.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   All good here.

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The File:Focus of Bedford Park Garden Suburb.svg(now .png) issue has been fixed, so all good. A very minor issue, but to me the two images in the architecture section look a bit small.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well done. This article has been a delight to read and review. Liam2520 (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)