Talk:Granby Four Streets

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Granby Four Streets/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 21:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Very pleased to pick up this further addition to the Liverpool streets canon. Am currently engaged elsewhere so may be a day or so before I can begin.

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article is a long way from meeting any one of the GA criteria.

   • 

2. The article contains copyright violations.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is unstable.

   • 

Main review

1. It is well written.

a (prose):

Lead

• "Grade II* historic Princes Park" - I'd either bluelink, or write, or both, "registered", as many readers won't know what it means. And I'd probably drop the "historic", which, uncited, is a bit POV, and is already implicit in its II* registered status. Perhaps, "Grade II* Princes Park"?

Have rephrased this. I didn't think historic was POV, although perhaps this is implied by its listed status. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• " and predominently contains commercial units" - "mainly"?

Reworded. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "The Granby Streets area is recognised as being one of the oldest multicultural neighbourhoods following Britain's post-war period" - not finding this clear, particularly the last bit. Perhaps, "The Granby Streets area is one of Britain's oldest multicultural neighbourhoods"?

I have rephrased this section, but felt it was important to keep note of the fact this was due to immigration following the war, which is further mentioned in the prose. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Shelter worked within the area" - "in"?

Changed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Geography

• "The Granby Four Streets chronologically comprise" - what does "chronologically comprise" mean? That they were built in the order Beaconsfield, Cairns, etc.? If so, perhaps, ""The Granby Four Streets area consists of four streets, built in the order, B,C,J and D and linked via Granby Street. They are situated immediately north of Princess Park"?

Dropped chronologically - I guess it doesn't serve a purpose and it's probably not a necessary piece of information as to what order they where built in. Did some minor rephrasing too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Architecture and layout

• "each street features its own unique architectural design" - I have to say they don't look very "unique" to me? Rather they look pretty bog-standard. If you're keeping it, I think we need to know what styles they are and what is unique about them?

They are all slightly different (Beaconsfield Street has double first floor windows and dormer windows, Cairns Street has single first floor windows without dormers, Jermyn Street has arched doorways and dormer windows and Ducie Street is double-fronted). This can be seen on street view, as well as photos. I guess I can make it clear what the differences are, but the only source are photos, so i'll see if I can find something more specific (perhaps an architect report, if it exists). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@KJP1: I have tried to describe based on Google Street View and used that as a reference. Not sure what you think about this, so let me know. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• One-sentence para.s, here and elsewhere - I think these very short para.s could be combined.

I have reconfigured part of the first paragraph into the 2nd one, so it's not a single sentence. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• The other thing about this section is, are the varying layouts as they were built or have they been reconfigured subsequently? I'd be surprised if there were open-plan ground floors in the 1870s. The source seems to suggest that these are later modifications. As for the mansard roofs, are they the ones in the photo of Beaconsfield St? If so, they look new. Also, that photo is captioned "New build properties on BS". Are they really new build? The end looks new, but the houses further in look reconfigured. Can all this be made clearer?

I added "since refurbishment" on the first point, and made clear that it's the end-terrace properties that are newly built (this should also be visibly clear from the facade windows). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

History - Early history

• "the east of what would become the granby streets" - capitalise, as elsewhere?

Good spot, done. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "who is recognised as a prolific architect" - the issue with statements of the kind, "who is recognised as", is that they invite tags. Also, they are mostly unnecessary. I think you could just drop "who is recognised as", without loss.

I agree, removed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

History - Post-war multiculturalism

• The first and second para.s are broadly saying the same thing. They could easily be combined and trimmed.

Looking at it, I can see why you think this. I have condensed some repetition and combined into an appropriately sized paragraph. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "number 7 Jermyn Street as the new home of their club, following a failure to complete construction of a new nearby Mosque" - perhaps, "as a new home for a social club...", and lower case mosque.

Fair enough, done. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

History - Charity renewal efforts

• "(SNAP) becoming involved in 1969 until 1972" - "(SNAP) becoming involved from 1969 until 1972"?

Minor, but amended. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "found over half of them were being lived in through multiple occupation" - perhaps, "found over half of them were houses in multiple occupation"?

Sure, changed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Ken Dodd, Liverpool Comedian" - perhaps, "The comedian Ken Dodd, born in Liverpool, opened flats in Ducie Street"?

Amended. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "and grant around £100,000" - not quite getting this. "grants of..."?

Yes, I had to read the commons speech a few times to try and work out what was meant by this. It says the charity got approval for 600 homes and the following sentence says "it is prepared to grant..", yet looking at it, I can't say conclusively if "it" refers to shelter organisation or the local government (I assumed shelter, the charitable organisation). I have done some rephrasing but you may wish to consider it more closely or offer your view on the speech. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@KJP1: You may want to check on this one to see if you agree with my interpretation. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• "The project was one of the earliest examples a community-based approach to neighbourhood regeneration and after two years had successfully rehabilitated around half of the properties, although struggled with securing improvement grants and convincing absentee landlords to improve their properties" - This doesn't quite flow. Perhaps, "The project was one of the earliest examples of a community-based approach to neighbourhood regeneration; after two years around half of the properties had been rehabilitated, although challenges in securing improvement grants and convincing absentee landlords to improve their properties remained"?

Have rephrased. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline and dereliction

• "and houses abandoned" - "and houses were abandoned".

Changed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "who were described by Viscount Mersey of Toxteth" - before reading the Source, I thought, "what's it got to do with him"? Perhaps a bit of context: "who were described by Viscount Mersey of Toxteth, in a debate on the inner-cities in the House of Lords,..."?

I guess some context would help, so added this. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "demolition of the streets and start over with a clean slate" - "demolition of the streets and to start over with a clean slate".

Sure, added. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• " In the mid-2000s, one resident returned home one day to find both next door neighbours had left while at its worst, a street of 68 households had only 8 occupied" - this doesn't quite work for me. Perhaps - "In the mid-2000s, one resident returned home to find both his neighbours had left while he was at work; in one street of 68 households, only 8 homes were occupied"?

I rephrased so this flows better. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "The area became a hot-spot for fly-tipping, including on routes that local schoolchildren would use to and from school" - perhaps, "The area became notorious for fly-tipping, including on routes that local schoolchildren would use to travel to and from school"?

Amended. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Boarded up houses had black painted boards, encouraging residents to group together and present the homes in a more inviting style, such as painting curtains on boards, fitting benches and putting out plants" - perhaps, "Boarded-up houses had black painted boards, although residents sought to mitigate/ameliorate this through painting curtains on the boards, fitting benches and putting out plants"?

I have rephrased this section, though I didn't want to over-complicate the prose by use of terms such as ameliorate, when there are wider understood terms that can be used. I hope it flows better now though. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Government regeneration

• "The Granby Residents Association was established in 1993 to help prevent the demolition and rebuilding of new houses in what was by then the four remaining streets" - perhaps, "The Granby Residents Association was established in 1993 to try to prevent the demolition of what were by then the only four remaining streets"?

I have rephrased slightly. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "although was publicly scrutinised due to what was perceived as social cleansing and pricing existing residents out of the area" - perhaps, "although it was publicly criticised for measures that were perceived as social cleansing by pricing existing residents out of the area"?

Amended as per your suggestion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Many of the properties..." - I think this para. needs a bit of work. Perhaps: "Throughout 2003-2004, the majority of the properties were bought by Liverpool City Council and boarded up. English Partnerships funded the council's acquisitions at a cost of £1,020,750 (£9,000 on average per property). Others were purchased by the Housing Market Renewal Initiative. A small number remained unsold, due to higher asking prices as a result of their superior condition. The council appointed Gleeson Group plc as the lead developer for the four streets".

Yes, I have reworked this using some of your advice. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "whilst others such as the remaining four streets in the Granby Triangle area had not commenced demolition" - perhaps, "while in others, such as the remaining four streets in the Granby Triangle area, demolition had not begun"?

Sure, amended. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Initial renovations started on Beaconsfield Street, renovating 32 properties during 2012, which included renovation to the facades and removal of the outriggers to be replaced with kitchen extensions, whilst some houses had the attic converted into additional bedroom space" - I'd want to avoid the triple "renovation", and I don't know what "outriggers" means, with neither the link nor the source, helping. I think they mean either outhouses, or retaining walls, [1]. Perhaps, - "Renovation started on Beaconsfield Street in 2012, with the reconstruction of 32 properties involving the refurbishment of the facades, the construction of kitchen extensions to the rear of the houses and the conversion of attics into additional bedroom space"?

Outriggers is a generally well known term for these old kitchen extensions added to the rear of victorian terraces. I accept the link is unhelpful and that it may not be a widely understood term. I have removed the term and simplified. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've genuinely never heard of outrigger used in this way. But then, I'd never heard of Ginnel either. Is it a northern term? KJP1 (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a regional specific term, although I accept that if this is the case then substituting the prose for something more widely understood is preferable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Renewal schemes - Community regeneration

• "which saw over 2,500 applicants for the scheme" - I think you can drop "for the scheme" as you have scheme earlier.

Changed to "apply". Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• "in undertaking improvements to the facade of their properties" - plural "facades".

Sure. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Renewal schemes - New construction regeneration

• "to renovate remaining houses on Ducie Street..." - this section doesn't quite flow for me. Perhaps something like, "to renovate the remaining houses on Ducie Street and construct 45 apartments on the street's vacant side, previously occupied by houses of similar style before demolition in 2009. The proposal, which included the building of new apartments behind the existing Victorian facades, was met with objections from 8 individuals and residents groups, who expressed concern that the apartments would not support the aim of allowing families to establish themselves in the community"?

Has been rephrased. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Present day

• "pre-loved" - not a fan. I think "second-hand" is the more common term.

Perhaps - I wasn't sure if second-hand sounded a bit common. I have changed to pre-owned which is perhaps more mainstream. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Recognition

• "London-based Assemble were the £25,000 winners of the 2015 Turner Prize for their artwork in the Granby Four Streets region" - I think I'd explain who Assemble are, "a London-based architecture/design collective", or some such, and I think "work" rather than "artwork" better conveys the scope of their efforts.

I have made clear they are architects and changed artwork as suggested. I had already noted they are urban designers in the lead too (at least, I think this is fairly accurate). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• "The announcement was made live on television" - a bit journalese, and I'm not sure it adds much. See comments on this bit in Section 3 below.

I felt the fact it was announced to a television audience helps portray the significance (not something done behind closed doors, or a letter in the post etc). A wide audience found out at the same time as those involved, which is quite a big deal. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate I've made quite a number of prose suggestions, not all of which may be to your liking! Some are more stylistic, than criterion-based, but there are areas where I think it needs tightening for flow/clarity/concision. KJP1 (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

b (MoS):

Sources

• The books should all have ISBNs, or OCLCs, as per the last one. My preference is also for them to have publishers' locations but I don't think this is a criterion requirement. The issue of title links is interesting. I used to sometimes use Google Books, as you do. This teed off some reviewers, who objected to "pushing" a commercial site. So now I use Worldcat, e.g., [2], unless the GoogleBooks link takes the reader to a useful snippet. That said, some other reviewers loathe having links at all....

All the book references I have managed to include because the content was obtained via free preview snippets. I am unconvinced that including a url is a concern, as a book is a book, regardless which outlet/site happens to present the core information about it. If there was a site that had the necessary books freely available to read, then that's different, but the purpose of a book is just that - it's offline. I'll check over the isbn numbers, though I am sure I would normally always include these where available. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I have ensured all books have the ISBN number in the reference (unusual for me to overlook this, especially on several books). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

2. It is verifiable with Wikipedia:No original research.

a (references)

• All looks well-referenced.

b (citations to reliable sources)

• I'm ok with these, and think they're fine for GA. The Brown might be challenged if you further. It appears to be a thesis, albeit a published one, and has neither ISBN or OCLC.

I'd imagine journals and academic papers are all fully sourced. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

c (OR)

• No evidence of OR.

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations)

• No evidence of CV.

3. It is broad in its scope.

a (major aspects)

• The bit that, in my view, needs a bit more is the Turner Prize award. 3(a) requires that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic". Currently, the Turner's got one line in the lead and three in the recognition section. There are a number of reasons why I think it needs more. First, the Turner is a prestigious award. Second, the Granby Streets are the only urban regeneration project ever to receive it, which I think is a measure of the significance of their regeneration. Third, it was the first time it was ever awarded to a design collective for an urban design project, rather than a more "conventional" artwork, painting/sculpture etc., although there have been installation pieces, List of Turner Prize winners and nominees. Fourth, it garnered shed-loads of major coverage, such as -

• [3] - Turner
• [4] - community regeneration
• [5] - as above
• [6] - Turner
• [7] - Turner
• [8] - Winter garden
• [9] - a nice External link

The last one would make a good External link. Although it would slightly upset the chronology, the, less-important, World Habitats placing could go with the Your Move award in a first para., and the second para. could focus on the Turner, with an explanation of its prestige, and the significance for Assemble and for the Streets. I'd probably also re-mention the Winter Garden, which was an important element of the design. Stylistically, it would also make a good conclusion.

I have expanded the mention for Assemble to state the significance of the win (plus in the lead), as well as split the winter garden prose into another section and expand, with mention of Assemble's involvement. This may need a little more expansion though. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have further expanded the Assemble section using 1 of the above refs so that the amount of prose is fitting for the significance of the award. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

b (focused)

• The article is appropriately focused on the history of the streets.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

• NPOV is fine.

5. It is stable.

• No edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Images look go to go.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• It would be nice to have an Infobox image but not essential. A shot of the Winter Garden would be good but we've not got one. Is the guy who took the very nice one of the mural for Welsh Streets able to help out? Or Geograph? Not a criterion-issue so won't hold up Passing, but nice if it could be got. I'd tweak the Beaconsfield Street caption as I don't think it shows only new-build (see above). p.s. - Checked Geograph and unfortunately no Winter Garden. Though it does have this rather wonderful dereliction illustration, [10].

I asked the kind photographer from the Welsh Streets and he did a few the other week, though an obvious infobox candidate was not identified. There isn't a mural of any kind, or a photo viewpoint which presents the entire four streets area (a photo down Granby would not really show the main streets in question). An aerial photo may be best, but I don't think a free one is available. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@KJP1: I haven't been able to find a photo which I feel reflects the whole area (at least a free one anyway). If you have any thoughts, you could suggest? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail:

That's me done. Apologies for the time taken, and thanks for your patience. I'll pop it on hold, but no time pressure. Take as long as I did, or as you need! Drop me a line here if anything needs clarifying. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@KJP1: Many thanks again for the thorough review. I'll work through and reply over the next few days and let you know of anything I am unsure about. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@KJP1: I feel like I have addressed the points you have raised now, with a few follow-up queries, or areas you may wish to pick up on or query further. Once you have given it another read through and reassessed the review, let me know your thoughts. Many thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Bungle - Many thanks. Shall go through but it will be tomorrow/Tuesday before I can complete. KJP1 (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is no problem at all. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Bungle - Have now read through twice, and it flows very well. I like the Turner material, and I think the Winter Garden is well-placed. An extra image or two would be nice, but Geograph's not helping us, and I don't do sign-up picture sites. It certainly meets the GA criteria and I'm pleased to Pass. Good working with you again. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@KJP1: That's great! Once again, thank you for the very comprehensive and detailed review and helping to develop this into a substantial article of GA status in a little over a month (I think that must be my record too). Appreciate your involvement with this. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)