Talk:Regency Square, Brighton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Lead could be built further, but is acceptable
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
The main focus on the architecture is appropriate as that is why the square is notable
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I've only glanced over the article, but it looks damn good. Plenty of information well sourced. I'll read it through and give my initial comments within the next few days. SilkTork *^YES! 20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is stable. It was recently created by Hassocks5489 who is the main contributor. SilkTork *^YES! 21:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article has plenty of informative images, all of which are copyright tagged. I have cropped a few to remove distracting elements, and have also removed a couple so as not to overwhelm the article, per Wikipedia:Layout#Images. Some thought may be given to the layout of the remaining images, and to the balance between being visually informative, and presenting too much visual information. However, the article meets the GA image criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 21:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be made explicit early on in History that Regency Square was originally Belle Vue Field. SilkTork *^YES! 21:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'm encountering some wording that may be a bit weighted. "intrusions" in "Some modern intrusions have successfully been overruled" And the following sentences in that section. These are cited, though the sources are not online so will take time to check. And, as these are opinions rather than facts, it would be appropriate to check if there are balancing views. Only presenting one set of opinions may be in conflict with WP:NPOV. SilkTork *^YES! 21:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is richly sourced, with practically every statement having a cite; and the sources listed are robust and first class. I haven't passed OR yet as I haven't had the chance yet to check out the sources. This tends to take a little bit longer, as is generally one of the last aspects to pass. I don't anticipate a problem as this article appears to be thorough and very careful. SilkTork *^YES! 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MoS is a bugger to pass straight away as there are so many aspects to it, and some of it is interpretation, and so is open for discussion. I feel that the lead doesn't quite meet WP:Lead. The rich detail of the body of the article is not reflected in the lead, and some aspects are not mentioned - such as the square's status as "one of Brighton's best sea-facing squares", and the dispute between Regency Society and the local authority. SilkTork *^YES! 22:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is clear and easy to read. Apart from the section regarding the dispute between Regency Society and the local authority, it is admirably restrained and neutral. Too often when working on an article on a topic one admires, the unconscious tendency is to select phrases and quotes that tend to praise. There are some sections that may be a little dense with information, and this information may be carried in rather short sentences that are abrupt and inhibit flow and understanding - such as the paragraph on Number 1 Regency Square. Improvement of such prose, however, is part of the ongoing development of the article - the prose itself is clear enough to meet GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 22:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage. This, like MoS, tends to be a tricky area. I tend to feel that if I read an article and I have questions then the coverage is not broad enough. Sometimes it may just be a matter of organising the existing material in a manner helpful for the general reader. My questions are regarding the current use of the square - the current social/cultural and economic aspects of the square. There is mention that some houses are hotels, but there is little other info. There is a restaurant on the corner, and there is a pub. And we learn in the history section that the square was quite socially fashionable at one time. It might be useful to pull some of the existing social/cultural aspects together into a Culture section, and do some research into what else is available in the sources. And have some of the economic information regarding the commercial use of the square, and the values of the buildings in another section. Who uses the central square, and what for - is it a public garden? I note from the history that the local authority acquired the gardens, and these were then granted to the tenants - does this refer to the green square? SilkTork *^YES! 22:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An enjoyable and informative article. I have a few quibbles which may sort themselves out. I'll look at the article again tomorrow, and see if I can track down some sources. I may be able to address any concerns myself, if not I'll list what I feel needs done and put on hold. SilkTork *^YES! 22:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a GA requirement, but where a source text has been scanned and placed on Google books, it is useful to provide a link to the online scan. As part of my background research I have come upon Dale's Fashionable Brighton on Google Books. SilkTork *^YES! 17:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review. I shall shortly start working on the points you have raised. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still reviewing - my hope is that I can simply pass this. I saw the article and thought it looked complete and good enough for an easy pass. As I get into the review I note there are little bits that just need tightening up, so a simple pass is looking unlikely, though the work shouldn't take long. When checking sources I just noted that Fines is listed as a source but doesn't appear to be used in the article - was Fines used but not credited, or was it decided not to use Fines in the end? SilkTork *^YES! 17:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just forgot to take him out of the Bib after not using him; I'll do that now. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. SilkTork *^YES! 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

I'll put this on hold for seven days. The GA points that I feel need attention are MoS and Coverage.

The Lead needs building up to meet WP:Lead.
Some of the social and economic aspects could be covered and/or made more explicit (there are some social details in the History section that could come out).
A copyedit to ensure that all statements are neutral.

I'll continue to check sources and do background reading in order to pass OR, check coverage and ensure everything is fine. I'll pop back in seven days to see how things are going, though I can be contacted on my talkpage or by email. If there is any aspect of the review that you are not happy with, please let me know. Everything is up for discussion, as much of the GA criteria is open to interpretation. SilkTork *^YES! 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thx; I'll continue working on this tonight/tomorrow, mostly. Finding out present uses of the buildings (and finding sources) will probably take longest. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A mention of Abbots flats would complete the square. There's mention of it here, along with an interesting photo of the square with air raid shelters. SilkTork *^YES! 18:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

Good work has been done, and I have added to that with some bits here and there, including a creation of a Social aspects section, putting a little more information in the lead, and rephrasing to ensure neutrality. The article is readable, informative and interesting. The lead, and social and financial aspects, can still be built up, however the article meets GA criteria, and those are aspects for the continued development of the article. Well done! SilkTork *^YES! 11:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comprehensive review. I have prepared some info about the present use (as hotels) of some of the houses, which I will add to the new section in due course. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]