Talk:Richmond Park/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 10:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 10:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments after using GAN toolbox

• Disambiguation needed for "Combe"
• A lot of dead links in the references, specifically refs 9, 22, 25, 27, 37, 57, 65, 70, 73, 79, 82, 108, 110, 118, 130, 134. Mostly because the webmaster at Royal Parks has moved stuff around: I'm afraid you have the chore of finding where to – e.g. your ref 118 should now point to https://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/richmond-park/richmond-park-attractions/sports-and-leisure and so on. Tim riley talk 10:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Pre-assessment comments

I don't think the shortcomings mentioned below are so serious as to call for an Immediate failure, and I am putting this review on hold for a week to give time for the comments to be considered and acted on.

• Links:
  • Duplicate internal links (see WP:OVERLINK): hectares, Richmond Park golf course (three times), Sir John Soane, Victorian era, Pembroke Lodge (twice), Princess Alexandra, White Lodge, protected view, St Paul's Cathedral, Mayor of London, Sudbrook Park, The Royal Parks, Sir David Attenborough, Joan Carlile, London Transport Museum and The Hearsum Collection.
  • External links: there are links from within the main text to external sites; these links should be removed or turned into references: see WP:ELPOINTS. I have noted those to Holly Lodge, Richard Farrington, Mil Stricevic, The Friends of Richmond Park, The Hearsum Collection, BBC arts pages, Yale, Government Art Collection, London Transport Museum and YouTube.
• WP:DATED
  • There are several places where the prose is liable to become out of date: examples are "little ecological expertise is apparent in the board's membership", "a development at Victoria Station which will obscure its right-hand corner", "the chair is Ron Crompton", "These are being catalogued by volunteers" etc. You need to pin these down with dates: "As at [date] these were being catalogued by volunteers" etc
• Lead
  • The lead does not comply with the requirements of MOS:LEAD. It doesn't – as it should – give a broad overview of the whole article. In the main text you have sections on History, Buildings, Sport and recreation, Art and much else that you should glance at in the lead. Note, too, that there shouldn't be anything in the lead that is not mentioned in more detail in the main text, and in general, the citations belong in the main text rather than the lead. Thus, somewhere in the main text you need a section that enlarges on its status as a national nature reserve, SSSI, Special Area of Conservation and Grade I listing telling us when so identified and why. For an excellent example of a Good Article lead for a place, see Chard, Somerset.
• Size
  • The method of showing area is inconsistent: no acres for the Casa de Campo or hectares for Central Park.
• Governance
  • "The Crown Lands 1851 Act" – the date would normally follow the word "Act"
• Access
  • The second, third and fourth paragraphs lack citations. The statements are not controversial or likely to be challenged, but for GA you'd best add citations just the same.
• History
  • The Manual of Style bids us avoid using definite articles in section headers: I think "The park in wartime" passes muster, but I'd lose the "The" from "The Petersham Hole", and perhaps make "The park during the Olympics" just "Olympics". Merely a suggestion.
  • In this section, as in others, there are one-sentence paragraphs. Such things are all right in moderation, but when there's a lot of them it isn't easy on the reader's eye.
• Buildings
  • Some more statements here that could do with citations
• Viewpoints
  • You tell us twice in this one section that there is a protected view of St Paul's from King Henry's Mound.
• Plantings and memorials
  • "World War II" – but elsewhere "the Second World War": best to be consistent
• Wildlife
  • The second paragraph lacks citations
• Ponds and streams
  • "Some strange WP:OVERLINK here: livestock, trench, bog, gravel.

That's all for now. Over to you. Tim riley talk 13:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That's very helpful, Tim riley talk. Thank you for taking the trouble to read the article so carefully and to comment in such detail. Your comments are very pertinent and I've already started to address them. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments

• The use of boldface within sections, such as for the names of all the gates and lodges, is non-standard, and should be removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know that using italics instead is the right answer. I think you should steel yourself and use plain unemphasised letters as you do for the names of the Lodge and other features. Tim riley talk 16:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• The use of many very short paragraphs (or indeed of very short named sections) for the gates and lodges is also non-standard. For example, the sections on Oak Lodge and White Ash Lodge are just 2 sentences each. I appreciate the desire to indicate each place as a separate topic, but it isn't really justified. Probably there should be just one section for all the minor lodges, i.e. you have sections as now for each of the major lodges, and just one section for 'Other lodges'. This same logic suggests that Robin Hood Gate and Ladderstile Gate could probably become subsections, while all the other gates should be merged into one section, which might be a single paragraph; alternatively, you might have a subsection for the six 'Original gates'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• I couldn't see any reason for the non-standard image widths for 4 images after the lead image, so I've reset them to the (user-configurable) default. It may be worth observing that choosing a fixed size could mean that some users see the images as smaller than usual. No doubt default sizes will change over the years, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• The coverage of Isabella Plantation is not adequate, either here or surprisingly in the main article. See Royal Parks: Isabella Plantation for more. At least we must mention the National Collection of Azaleas, as well as the fine collection of Rhododendron and Camellias: currently the article implies that rhodos are just weeds in the woodland! For example you could Search under "R" to see the Rhododendron species listed. There also needs to be more on the history of 'Isabella Slade'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Except for the comment under the first bullet point, above, I'm happy with where we are now on these four points. Headhitter, are you ready for me to take the review off hold and proceed to judgment, or do you want more time? Tim riley talk 16:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ready to go now, I think, Tim riley. Thanks very much for you help and patience. And my thanks to Chiswick Chap too. It's my first attempt to bring any Wikipedia article to GA standard and your comments have been most illuminating: I shall bear them in mind for the other articles I've been working on. Headhitter (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion

The recent changes have, in my judgment, brought the article to GA standard. There are still some one-sentence paragraphs, but not so many as to invite adverse comment. I cannot say whether the coverage (e.g. as regards the history of Isabella Slade mentioned by Chiswick Chap, for whose supplementary comments I am grateful) is comprehensive, but for GA it doesn't have to be – see criterion 3a and footnote. The links from the references now all work (though the toolbox inexplicably, and wrongly, reports that refs 35 and 74 are dead). The images are all properly documented except for the 1925 picture of the Iraqi royals, which is implausibly claimed as "own work" by the Commons uploader, and which, for the moment, I have commented out, while I pursue that point.

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 documented.

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

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I don't know if you have any plans to improve the article further with FAC in mind, but if so I'd recommend taking it to peer review, as there are a good many points that would need attention. Meanwhile, congratulations on your first navigation through GAN. Tim riley talk 19:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• • Applauds GA status for a splendid historical article! Well done, Headhitter, and congratulations on your first GA! (also impressed with detailed review by Tim as well) ScarletRibbons (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)