| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
.One of the most iconic pieces of applied art ever designed in Britain. I've been working for the last couple of months to get it to Good Article status, which Sainsf awarded it just this morning, and I'm looking to move on to Featured Article status shortly (unlike Garamond, which I've put on hold for FA due to need to get some better images, I think the sourcing here is probably complete enough to move forward). Advice on content or formatting much welcomed. I'm going to ping @Cassianto:, @Tim riley:, @Brianboulton: and @Ealdgyth: as people recommended to me by Casliber to discuss on the Garamond peer review project. Also @Tphinney:, @Stewf: - any thoughts?
Thanks, Blythwood (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Tim riley
editI have only two suggestions:
- You should rearrange the illustrations so that slabs of text are not sandwiched between them. With so many different shapes and sizes of screen now in common use it is impossible to please everybody with your placement of images, but keep them to one side or other of the text as best you can, rather than on both sides at once.
- There is a clunky tabloid-style false title in the lead:"from calligrapher and lettering artist Edward Johnston...". Adding a definite article will solve the problem.
This is a fine and immensely thorough article that I look forward to seeing at FAC in due course. Tim riley talk 09:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Johnbod
edit- Clearly close to FA-standard, or there. Some paras too long, some (in the lead) too short - somebody will want this kept to 4 paras per WP:LEAD - it's currently 6. I don't entirely agree with Tim re the picture placing. On my 300px default setting, the pics now go way down into the notes. I'd move one (perhaps the swimsuit girl) up to below the lead pic, where there's white space next to the TOC. I'd consider mini-galleries at a decent size setting. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)