Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Taliesin (studio)/1

Taliesin (studio)

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a lot of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is also an "Introduction" section whose information I think should be redistributed to other sections of the article (like history) or removed. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from KJP1

I think this, very Good, article is easily capable of the light wash-and-brush up required to bring it to present citation standards. I don't agree that the Introduction should be removed - it's basically a mis-labelled Lead and just needs to be repurposed as such. As to the para.s that don't end in cites, I don't see that many, and many/most could easily be addressed, merely by combining what are sometimes too-short para.s anyway.

I see the main editor has been notified. Obviously, if they're intending to pick it up, I'll step back. I'll Watchlist it and come back if required. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This gives an idea of what I mean. I think there are about half a dozen ^{[citation needed]} tags that need addressing, and a sweep to make sure all the lead material is covered, and cited, in the body. I'd reckon it needs 2 hours work max. KJP1 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 - Have moved the Intro to the lead, combined some short para.s, and addressed the ^{[citation needed]} tags, which meant finding about 3/4 cites. All paragraphs now end with a cite, and the citeless lead material is covered in the body. The result is here. Are there any outstanding concerns? KJP1 (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A separate point on titling - I find the current "Taliesin (studio)" a little odd. It implies the article is just looking at Wright's studio within the wider Taliesin complex, which it isn't. Personally, I would rename it "Taliesin East", which would bookend nicely with Taliesin West. I see the GAN Reviewer made the same point in 2014. KJP1 (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: I would move the edits from your sandbox to the article so that other editors can see the changes on their watchlist and add comments. I have no opinion on a name change. The prose looks a lot better. The History.com sources should be removed. "Weekly Home News & August 20, 1914" does not point to a citation in the bibliography. "Storrer, William Allin (2006)" does not have any inline citations pointing to it. These are my only major concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 - OK, moved the text back over, without experiencing the attribution issue I feared (phew!). Taken the History.com's out/re-sourced Weekly Home News as I couldn't access it/put Storrer in Further reading. I hope we are good? KJP1 (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No further concerns. I hope that the source mentioned in the "Further reading" section is used in the article as inline citations, but that doesn't prevent me from declaring a keep. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.