Talk:Corporation Park, Blackburn/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Corporation Park, Blackburn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

While this article is indeed comprehensive and generally well-referenced, it is erratic enough that I cannot pass it at this time.

This starts in the intro. The first two grafs are in accord with WP:SS and the third one starts out reasonably enough but then gives me detailed measurements of the street frontage better served in the body of the article. Really, all that graf needs is three sentences.

The article is well-illustrated with free images, however they could be laid out less choppily (no need for two lines of text jammed in between images. Try sticking with a standard size for pictures and alternating from the left to right and back (it greatly improves readability, studies have shown). Also, the cutline to the original plan is overly long. The information in the second sentence should really be saved for the text.

The table of costs in the middle of the article is, frankly, the deal breaker. I do not see how encyclopedic it is that we know how much each and every item of the park's construction cost. See WP:NOT. In addition that table creates a horrid amount of whitespace. This could be dealt with in a summary graf or two at no cost (ahem) to the article.

The prose has been holding its own, but in the 20th century history section it starts to lose its narrative thread. Several grafs begin "In YEAR ..." and it just seems like whatever events were related to the park that could be reliably sourced (or not) were thrown in indiscriminately. So indiscriminately, in fact, that at one point we go from 1960 back to 1957 without any explanation. Very confusing.

There's some slipshod grammar. I don't know if this is some English thing I'm missing, but I think "coronation", in terms of the investiture of a specific monarch, takes a definite article. Certainly it does so at the beginning of a sentence.

I also don't like the "as discussed above" ... very self-referential. There are ways of making this connection for the reader (or letting them make it) without being so blatant.

Lastly, there's the image gallery. Since the article is already pretty well-illustrated, there's no need to park them there; and since they're on Commons, they won't be deleted if they're not in an article. Granted, some of them would indeed illustrate other aspects of the park for the article. But that's a reason to write more of them into the article and find a way to use them. In other words, I really think the gallery ought to go (it also creates more whitespace).

This failure is certainly no reason not to make the improvements and bring it back. Feel free to do so when ready. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)