Talk:Chiswick/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 21:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is plainly of GA standard, and looks to me more like an incipient FAC. Not that this is going to stop me quibbling about a few points:

• Duplicate links
  • There's rather a lot of them. The London Borough of Hounslow is linked twice from the lead, and in the main text there are duplicate links to other pages from Bedford Park, Gunnersbury, Strand-on-the-Green, Turnham Green, Hammersmith, Chiswick House, St Nicholas Church, listed building, District line, Mortlake, William Hogarth, Mawson Arms, John Isaac Thornycroft, John I. Thornycroft & Company and Second World War.

Removed.

• Lead
  • For non-UK readers a link to "postcode" would be kind.

Linked.

• • "Meander" – a link might be helpful there too.

Linked.

• History
  • [Writing this, as I am, in Keswick, I am delighted to see another Cheese Farm.]
  • Second para: "St. Nicholas Church" – but no full stop at earlier or (most) later mentions.

St Nicholas it is.

• Governance
  • Not clear why Chiswick St Nicholas is italicised

Removed.

• • Second para: I won't witter on about WP:DATED: I have no doubt you or other editors will make sure this is kept up to date. Ditto with the current bus routes etc, later.

Added some dates. It's a permanent headache and smacks of WP:Recentism but we can't get rid of it.

• Geography
  • "Richard Norman Shaw" here but "Norman Shaw" later. The latter is how he was known. (He signed himself "R. Norman Shaw", but never used the "Richard".)

Norman Shaw it is.

• Churches
  • "W.D. Caroe" – with no space between first and second initials, but a spaced-out "W. D. Moffatt "in the next but one para.

Spaced.

• Duke's Meadows
  • Throughout the article this site is sometimes "Duke's" and sometimes "Dukes".

We won't duke it out. Apostrophe it is.

• Transport
  • Last para: not clear why the Overground stations are italicised.

Removed.

• Eighteenth century
  • It looks odd, to my eye, to have Hogarth and Charles Holland written of in the present tense as though they were still alive.

Done.

• References
  • Ref 2 looks a bit peculiar, with a bare url showing.

cited ref.

• The voice of one that cryeth in the wilderness
  • "On Bath Road" etc is an American importation. Until recently we have been content to use the traditional English form, "In Bath Road". If you run "in Downing Street" and "on Downing Street" through the search engine of The Times's archives, "in" beats "on" by 8,293 to 23. For Regent Street, "in" beats "on" by 4,972 to 167. Your call, naturally, as "on" though alien and horrible is not actually wrong.

Done, even if the reviewer doth eat locusts and wild honey. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. Nothing to frighten the horses, but I'll put the review on hold for a week to give you leisure to consider these few comments." – Tim riley talk 21:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. I've done all these. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Good. Stand well clear:

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Splendid stuff, and a pleasure to review.