Talk:Thomas Harrison (architect)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 13:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've had a very quick read of this article and my initial conclusions are that this article is somewhere between a GA and an FA.

Notwithstanding that, I'm now going to review the article against WP:WIAGA. This is likely to take at least another day. I will start at Early life and training and work my way to the end, and then do the WP:Lead.

At this stage of the review, I will mostly raising "problems", so If I don't make any comments about a particular section or subsection that implies that I consider it to be compliant with WIAGA.

Pyrotec (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Early life and training -

OK.

• Works -
  • Bridges -

• I wikilinked Skerton Bridge, according to wikipedia it is still in use and is a Grade II* listed building. (and, I've driven over it and walked under it).

• Note: the Grade II* listing is mentioned in the Present day section, so I've struck most of the above comment out. Pyrotec (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Lancaster and Chester Castles -

OK.

• • Gentlemen's clubs and public buildings -

Note: The Royal Exchange, Manchester article has this figure File:Baines 1835-Exchange, Manchester.png, which could well be Thomas Harrison's building, based on the description of it.

• • • It is, but was on a different site from the present Royal Exchange. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Domestic and related structures, Ecclesiastical buildings & Other works -

These three subsections are OK.

• Personal life -

• OK.

• Present day -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - "Skerton Bridge continues to be used by heavy traffic. A survey in 1995 concluded that the bridge is still strong enough to carry vehicles ten times the weight of the heaviest vehicles of the time it was built". Well yes. But, wikipeida informs us Skerton Bridge: "An additional arch was added to the south end of the bridge in about 1849 to allow for the passage of the "Little" North Western Railway (since closed) beneath it.[1][8] It continues to be used as a road bridge, and when it was examining .....".

• I have made a small addition — is that what you wanted? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that was all I was looking for. Pyrotec (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - Ref 47 (English Heritage) is used to both provide and verify statistics about listing in both Scotland and England. Its not true in respect of listing Scotland. The information for Scotland can be found at [1] and this paragraph needs updating/correcting.

• That was a bad omission! I have added info about Historic Scotland's grading criteria. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Appraisal -

• OK.

• References -

• Most of your information, in book form, by number of citations, comes from Champness 2005, and I have no problem with that. The Institution of Civil Engineers, through their in-house publishers Thomas Telford, have a series of publications Civil Engineering Heritage, mostly just out of print. I have some of them, but not the one for Northern England, by R.W. Rennison (see [2]), it might be of use.

• That could be a useful acquisition for future use, thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• Quite a competent summary, but would probably need "beefing up" for FAC.

There are a few, but not many, minor points to address, so I'm putting this review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   A very "readable" article on Thomas Harrison's works.

   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 with a wide-ranging selection of relevant images.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to award this article GA-status. It's a "strong" GA and I suspect that it could make FA in due course; but WP:PR would provide pointers on what additional work would be required. Congratulations on a "fine" article. Pyrotec (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)