| 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.
|
- As is my usual practice, I'll go through and fix any nitpicks / prose issues I see myself - if there are any changes you object to, just let me know here and we can discuss.
- One organizational issue - it's a little odd to read about the design competition and architectural conversion and then read about the inception, finishing up with the Gateshead Council again. I would suggest incorporating the 'Inception' section into the 'History and architecture' section. Since it focuses on the structure's pre-art history and conversion, but not Baltic's history, I might break the section into several smaller ones, titled say 'Baltic Flour Mills', 'Arts centre inception', 'Architecture' or similar.
- I've split these into two sections: 'History' and 'Architecture', as 'History and architecture' was getting a bit long. Hope this works better.
- attribute the quote of "simple, honest, industrial" design as it is opinion.
 Done
- in 'Management,' "resolve the financial situation" - what financial situation?
- Have clarified it was described as "chaotic".
- Also in 'Management' - "there were claims" - claims from who?
- Not specified in the source, but I have clarified who said that there was reports, if that makes sense.
- Shorten quote from Nordgren at start of 'Community and cultural impact'
- Done
- in 'Thanksgiving', "the remaining photographs" implies that the suspect photo was removed from display, but this is not actually stated, so please rephrase to clarify. Also, is "the owner" Goldin or Sir Elton John or someone else?
- Done
- Organizationally, the mention of the covid-19 closure should be moved elsewhere - further comments under breadth/focus below.
- Pass. I re-named the first section, but feel free to discuss here if you think it's now less clear. Thanks for the other improvements. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
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.
|
- Seeing some ref-name errors on #34 (Lognonne) and #27 (Whetstone)
- Done Should be fixed now.
|
|
|
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).
|
- Two coats of paint is a fairly new source and I don't know anything about their reputation. Especially since it's being used to say something broadly about "critics and the public", do you have any information backing up its reliability as a source?
- Done Thanks for pointing this out - I don't have anything to back up the reliability after a more thorough review of the source. Instead, I've removed the line and added some further contextual information about the exhibition from reliable sources.
- The Pedro Alonzo source, Spank the Monkey - is that an exhibition guidebook, a retrospective of the exhibit, or something else? Why does it have the same title as the exhibit?
- It's an exhibition catalogue - is there a way to make that clearer in the citation?
- The Right Vision Media sources (European Union News) are promotional press releases. They're not used egregiously, but is there a more independent source available talking about this partnership?
- Done I've found an article in The Guardian about Baltic 39 so have used that instead. Have also edited the text to reflect this new info.
- mandh-online.com now appears to be owned by a different organization, it's now a Thai website. The original URL is a 404 and should be removed. Also, is M&H magazine a museum-trade specific publication? Does it have a new online presence somewhere?
- The URL is marked as dead now and there is an archive link - is that ok? Also, I think M&H may be Museums + Heritage magazine. Appreciate this isn't very robust research, so happy to find an alternative source if that's better!
- It's acceptable, but if you can find an alternative source, that would be ideal! Ganesha811 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Found an alternative source from Channel 4.
- Source #58 gives the author's name (presumably, Ben Hoyle) as the publisher and the original link 404s. Clean up needed.
- Done Archive link is available and have tidied up the citation.
- Please recheck the citations to make sure everything is in its proper place - author's name, publisher, publication date, title, etc.
- I think everything looks ok. I've used some short citations where sources are in the bibliography. Are there any particular examples you were thinking of?
- Also worth noting that Guest (2008) is not an independent source, as it was published in association with Baltic, but it is not used to cite anything controversial or opinionated that I can see, so not an issue for GA.
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research.
|
|
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
|
- Earwig finds a clear instance of similarity. However, the article was published in May 2012, and the material was already in the article before that date. I'm inclined to think this is an example of a journalist copying from Wiki, and not a copyvio on our part. However, it might be worth rephrasing the sentences anyway for simplicity's sake.
- Done No problem - I've reworded the part in question.
- Nothing else found by Earwig or manual spot-check.
- Pass - no remaining issues.
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
|
- I agree with these comments from David Eppstein and mentions of some or all of the following should be added while avoiding recentism:
- Its covid-related closure from November 2020 to May 2021? [1]
- Done
- The first major retrospective of Judy Chicago in Britain, 2019 [2]
- Done
- Its international award for emerging artists [3] [4]
- Done
- Pass. Issues addressed. No other major areas found that require expansion.
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
|
- The article gives rather a lot of space to the 'Opening' compared to what has happened at Baltic since then. Management is covered well and I think the cultural impact section is good. However, vague financial issues are mentioned twice without ever being detailed, and the covid-19 mention is in the wrong place. I would suggest moving 'Management' above 'Opening' and renaming 'Opening' to 'History as arts centre' or similar. The 'Notable exhibitions' section can then be incorporated into the new 'History as arts centre' section.
- I've rearranged the sections and additional clarification about the centre's finances was added into 'Management'. I believe the other instance of financial issues is mentioned in 'Beryl Cook' - I can also add the detail about the "chaotic" financial situation in here if that works.
- Yes, the more detail you can add on the financial situation the better, it's important and shouldn't be mentioned without appropriate detail/context. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added more details on the financial and management difficulties, let me know what you think!
|
|
|
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.
|
- I see that there have been some disputes in the past and on the talk page, but the article is stable now and has been since January. Pass. Ganesha811 (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
| 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.
|
- File:012298-Baltic Flour Mill Gateshead unknown 1950 (4075866463).jpg has a 2009 date (presumably the date of upload), which should be changed to the date/year of original creation. It also needs a US PD tag in addition to the UK one. The UK tag also says it was created by the UK government, which doesn't seem to be correct - it was created by J. Rank and *shared* by the UK government.
- I've changed the date. I may need some assistance in identifying which tags to use. Possibly {{PD-1996}}? But if Joseph Rank died in 1943, lifetime + 70 years whould have expired in 2013.
- I'm not sure - copyright issues aren't my specialty. I'll dig into it a bit, and in the meantime, it might be worth asking on the Commons help page (link). —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not able to determine what copyright tag would be appropriate. The source (Newcastle Libraries) say they believe it's Public Domain, but I'm unable to figure out why they think so. Have you had any luck, Unexpectedlydian? —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for digging - I haven't contacted the helpdesk yet but will do so. For now, I've removed the image from the article. If it later transpires that it is PD, I can add it back in.
- Thanks - that takes care of it for now. Feel free to add back later if the copyright situation can be clarified. Pass in the meantime.
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
|
|
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
|
