Talk:Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Pahunkat (talk · contribs) 03:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 18:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

General comments

Reading over, a nice, clean article. Should make for an easy review.

Prose and content

• proximity to London, good access to railway lines and location in an area with minimal pollution. location in an area with, "good access to railway lines" -> railway access

   Done

• limiting his influence in the design why is this an important point to make?

   Done removed

• Furthermore, it allowed for the installation of a large quantity of windows on the outside walls[1] that led to heat and light problems during the building's tenure. flips in tone: opportunity/threat

   Done fixed

• Operations were powered with electricity from the national grid redundant that source was the national grid.

   Done

• Grain stored in the silos was transported through the factory using vertical elevators. stored in the silos redundant

   Done

• It was washed and passed through a pressure cooker under gravity Could you elaborate on the role of gravity?

   Done Removed the gravity bit - butterfield is the only source I could find that goes into detail about the processes used in the factory, and doesn't elaborate

• finally baked in ovens to produce the final product to produce the final product redundant

   Done

• This was achieved through the inclusion of whitewashed concrete and ceramic tiles in the exterior design the tiles were done for marketing?
• Tourists visiting it would purchase tickets to Welwyn Garden from King's Cross station in London why is this important to mention?

   Done removed

• The factory was an important local employer during the factory's tenure during the factory's tenure redundant

   Done

• The factory was an important local employer during the factory's tenure, with many locals working in or knowing people employed by the factory.[1][2][3] The factory was lot of repetition of "the factory"

   Done

• with 370 jobs lost in the move more concise, i.e. "costing 370 jobs etc.

   Done

• The factory is considered to be a local landmark,[1][2] and was the entry for 1926 in the Twentieth Century Society's book 100 Buildings 100 Years.[3] Parts of it were granted Grade II heritage status by Historic England on 16 January 1981.[4] suggestion: move this to "The Wheat" paragraph in #Cultural History.

   Done moved

Sources

It's not necessary for GA, but I would strongly recommend creating a section for sources, and referring to it with Template:sfn (Shortened footnote). It's a bit silly for six of the sources to be duplicated, but changing one page number. You can see it in play in an example page.

Suggestion: link the internet archive copy of The European cities and technology reader : industrial to post-industrial city in the references for accessibility.

Spot Review

1) "The factory was designed by de Soissons between March–July 1924" Y

2) "at the cost of workers' recreational space" Y

3) "In 1960, the packing and quality control process was automated by machinery, reducing the number of workers involved in the packing process from sixteen to six.": I'll review soon Y

4) "Visitors were invited to view the factory in further support of marketing on its cleanliness" Y

5) "Demolition of the newer 1930s silos took place on 17 January 2018 in preparation for future construction work" Y

Other stuff

• No OR, COPYVIO
• Stable, neutral
• Images: N: The Shredded Wheat ad is in copyright according to URLs linked in Commons. Needs to be deleted from Commons.

   Done removed image

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rollinginhisgrave, thanks for the review - just a quick note that I’ve seen this and will get to it shortly. Pahunkat (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.