Talk:Trellick Tower/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 18:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Detailed comments

To follow over the next few days. Eric Corbett 18:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, that was quick, I've only just finished the basic improvements. I had a feeling you'd be interested in reviewing this one - there may be one or two other sources to ferret out the odd fact, but nothing obvious springs to mind. I want to go on a tour and look at the views! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to give priority to UK articles, rightly or wrongly. Just as a nit-picking alert, I'll be making a start later this evening. Unless you'd prefer someone else to do the review of course, which would be quite understandable given my most recent bad press on WO. Eric Corbett 18:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balls to that, you are here for the articles and that’s what matters. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I don't feel that the lead adequately summarises the article. For instance, we're told that the tower still contains mostly social housing, but we haven't been told that it ever contained social housing, so a bit more could be said about that. I also think that more could usefully be said about the architecture of the building, and the shops and so on are worth including. Were Goldfinger's proposed communal areas actually included in the final building? The lack of cladding and the reasons for it are worth including as well, given Grenfell.

The communal areas were vandalised before the building opened; I've clarified that. I've expanded the lead a bit to mention the motivation for constructing the tower and the most obvious design characteristics, plus its Grade II* listing and subsequent effects; I think that's probably getting towards the right level of comprehensiveness, as the guidelines suggest a two-paragraph lead for 10K of prose is about right. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

""The tower has featured in numerous artefacts of popular culture ...". Artefact can't be the right word here, as it means tool or ornament.

I was struggling to think of another word, obviously "bits of popular culture" or "things in popular culture" is no good. I've seen "artefacts" used before - here's a random book search that shows it's used in quite a few sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead looks much better to me now. Re "artefacts of popular culture", I think that the book references you link to rather support my point of view. The Ashgate Research Companion, for instance, refers to an overmantel as (not being) an artefact of popular culture, not an entire piece of work such as a book or a film. My suggestion would be to keep it simple with something like "Trellick Tower has featured in films, television and music videos, such as ...". But if you're wedded to your current wording I won't fight you over it. Eric Corbett 02:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to something simpler - hopefully that will suffice. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine. Eric Corbett 11:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"... and is a recognisable local landmark." Aren't all landmarks recognisable, and local?

Trimmed, though I'm slightly concerned that "is a local landmark" fails the principle of some astonishment to be worth mentioning. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so I've moved it. Eric Corbett 02:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Location

"... leading from London Paddington station." I don't think you can lead from rather than to can you?
It depends on whether one is taking a train to Paddington or from it, one refers to "down" trains and one refers to "up". Redrose64 would be able to give a definitive answer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With very few exceptions (the Stockport–Stalybridge line and the Heathrow loop on the Piccadilly line are two examples that come to mind), passenger-carrying railway lines are bidirectional so it would be equally valid to write "leading to London Paddington station". I think those five words are superfluous. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Design

"The 23rd and 24th floors contain maisonettes split over two floors." I think we should have told before this that the block consists of 31 floors. Are these really maisonettes anyway? I thought that maisonettes had their own individual entrances rather than sharing communal entrance doors and stairs? Aren't they instead duplexes?

That's what the Historic England entry calls them, and this source shows a "3 bedroom maisonette to rent" and includes a floor plan as such. Anyway, I have expanded the article a little to show there are 31 floors on the main building, and 7 on the perpendicular shops / utilities wing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Eric Corbett 19:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"... deliberately put slight variations in the structure to each apartment would seem different." Clearly something wrong there.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that the tower consists of two blocks, one of 7 and one of 31 storeys joined by the service tower? My addition was reverted for no apparent reason. 188.28.177.9 (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as stated above, it's been put into the "design" section of the body. Are you accidentally editing logged-out, Eric? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing to do with me. Eric Corbett 19:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder who it is then? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Planning

"The tower opened on 28 June 1972, at a cost of £2.4 million." The way that's written makes it look as it was the opening that cost £2.4 million, rather than the tower block itself.

Reworded a bit Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"... he died in 1987 before his reputation could be restored." When was his reputation destroyed?

I suspect the vandalism, drug abuse and prostitution in his buildings might have had something to do with it. Reworded. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revival

"In 1994 residents in the tower, along with all other council stock in Kensington & Chelsea, elected to self-manage the properties ..." Council stock is inanimate, obviously can't do anything.

Copyedited to make it a bit clearer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references

"Trellick Tower is reported to have been the inspiration behind J. G. Ballard's 1975 dystopian novel High Rise and its 2016 film adaptation directed by Ben Wheatley ... Reported by whom?

Switch to "believed to have been". The important point here is that I haven't seen a source that Trellick was definitely the inspiration for High Rise, merely that it probably was, or was likely to have been. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. At FAC you might be accused of OR, but this isn't FAC. Eric Corbett 00:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're done here now. Your t-shirt is in the post. ;-) Eric Corbett 00:39, 25 January 2018 (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.