Talk:Glenrothes/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC) This article is relatively thorough, and extensively referenced. Images appear generally OK. I am assuming that Scotland has freedom of panorama; if not, then the photos of sculptures may be a violation of the artists' copyright.
 * The article is not neutral, nor always written in an encyclopedic style. Examples:
 * "The pit's closure was devastating and further development of Glenrothes was almost stopped. In hindsight however, the pit's closure did help change the fortunes of the town for the better." Rephrased sentence.
 * "There are a number of attractive villages surrounding the town each unique in their own respect." (sounds like a promotional travel guide and can probably be simply deleted). Removed"attractive" from sentence.
 * " Fife Constabulary have established their modern headquarters". Does this simply meen "current"? Removed "modern" from sentence.


 * "The flexible nature of the complex means it can cater for a large variety of regional and local events and performances including theatrical performances, award ceremonies, an annual beer festival, tribute bands and model railway exhibitions. " Sounds like their brochure's sales pitch. And it is in any case not referenced. Sentence reworded and additional reference added.
 * "The town boasts good sports facilities" Reworded sentence.
 * "Landmarks and notable buildings in Glenrothes vary from tall buildings and bridges to hills, sculptures, churches and henges. The most prominent landmarks in the town include the River Leven Bridge which towers over Riverside Park, the Tullis Russell factory chimneys towering in the east of the town and Raeburn Heights, a residential tower block and Fife House, an office block, both of which sit at the western corners of the town centre. These are the most recognisable tall structures in Glenrothes which can be seen from afar." I apologise if I am wrong, but this reads like plagiarised text from a local guide. Removed first sentence. For the record this was no sales pitch and was not referenced from a local guide. It was written based on evidence from books but written in my own format.
 * "The Lomond Hills form a natural backdrop to the town when looking north and can be seen from as far away as Edinburgh and the Lothians in the south, and Tayside in the north." There are a couple of things wrong with this. It sounds like geography rather than local landmarks; and the fact that these hills can be seen from anywhere other than Glenrothes is not relevant to an article about Glenrothes; "natural backdrop" sounds like promotional text, is unencyclopedic, all the more so since it is unreferenced. Removed sentence.
 * "Mondrian inspired stain glass windows" - according to what reliable source? Source from Historic Scotland now added.
 * "Glenrothes is also within commuting distance of the universities in Dundee, Edinburgh and Stirling." That is a subjective judgement which again comes out sounding like an advertisement for the town.  Point taken, sentence removed.
 * "The airport is able to accommodate private light aircraft and also contains a small restaurant, the Tipsy Nipper." More (unreferenced) advertising for tiny local businesses? Should be deleted. Reference added, sentence reworded to be less sales pitchy and name of restaurant removed.

But the elephant in the room (if you are familiar with that expression) is this: Glenrothes won the 2009 Carbuncles Awards for its depressed, investment-starved and ugly town centre. See, eg, this, this, this and this. Probably the most notable thing to have happened to Glenrothes, unfortunately, it should be mentioned in the lead and in the body text.

The only other event that might be worth covering is the 2008 by-election, notable for the lossof voting records and for "The result was a huge fillip to the Prime Minister, who broke with convention and risked his political credibility by joining the campaign trail with his wife, Sarah" (from this).

Other points:
 * There is material under "geography" that reads more like either history, or architectural styles. Sub-heading reinstated.
 * "This is bounded by a ring road, has been purposely planned, contains no residential element and is largely enclosed." What is largely enclosed? The town centre? Well, if it is by a "ring road", that would go without saying would it not? Sentence reworded to improve legibility.
 * "Today, as a result, there is a large variety of artworks and sculptures scattered throughout the town (around 132)..." What is the source for this number? And how can it be "around" 132? 132 is an integer and one doesn't have half a sculpture. Is it 132 or is it more than that? Or around 130? Number removed until proper reference can be sourced.
 * "an eventide home". Never heard this phrase before. What does it mean? It is a name for a care home for the elderly. However reworded to make it more legible.
 * If St Pauls is "the most significant piece of modern church architecture north of the English Channel", then the article needs a photo of it, and ditch the Columba photo (speaking of which - that is a listed building? It looks like an old telephone exchange with a wierd stained glass cardboard cutout box on top. Are we sure this image is of the right object?)

Will keep an eye out. Any questions, raise them either here ot at my talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, I appreciate the time you have taken in reviewing the article and I shall address your points in turn if I may over the next few days.

Perhaps you could clarify a few points before I undertake some of the work.

In relation to the point on public artworks and the rights associated with photographing them, and distributing or displaying the photos to others, Section 62 of the Copyright, designs and patents Act 1988 states:

Representation of certain artistic works on public display (1) This section applies to— (a) buildings, and (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. (2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by— (a) making a graphic work representing it, (b) making a photograph or film of it, or (c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it. (3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.

I am therefore satisfied that there is no issue relating to the display of the images of the public artworks on the Wikipedia page. I would appreciate any thoughts you may have on this.
 * Thank you. Agreed - no problem with those photos then. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In relation to your point on the "carbuncle award". There was mention of this previously in the article, however this was removed by another editor. For what reason I do not know? I would be happy to reinstate it if required. However I think its worth noting that the Carbuncle Awards contest is run by a body which has no official status, does not reflect an official Scottish view and only reflects the views of a self proclaimed minority, who operate a contest that is in itself questionable in the fairness and way it is run. Is it therefore reliable, crediable and relevant to include mention of such an award in an encyclopedic article?
 * I think your opinion of the Carbuncles is showing :-) It is highly newsworthy, reflected in the coverage. The WP article should not be focussed on "official" views; on the contrary, it should draw on independent sources. The Carbuncles are run by people with some expertise in architecture and planning (Urban Realm / Carnyx Group) and regularly get publicity because it is an award with professional input. Note that one of the BBC stories quotes another group, the Glenrothes Area Futures Group, as supporting the award's contention - that central Glenrothes has been neglected. I am not just suggesting the award be recorded in the article - the coverage should be more expansive, outlining why it was awarded and the reception from GAFG and others. Peter Grant's reaction is typical of someone with vested interest who doesn't want to hear the bad news, but the award itself appears sound, reputable and should be addressed. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on St Columba's church. I realise Modern Architecture is not to everyone's taste. Whether a person "likes" the building or not in this case is irrelevant. As stated we shouldnt be providing bias opinions. The church has been officially recognised by Historic Scotland as an important piece of modern Scottish Architecture and has been given Grade-A listed status. I shall include further sources to back up the "Mondrian inspired" quote.
 * Modern Architecture is to my taste, i just thought this was a poor example, but if it is the correct building and has that historic status, then it should remain covered as it currently is. Any chance of a photo of the other church though? Good luck on the Mondrian thing. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I will endeavour to reword some of the article, as I agree that in places it is not neutral.

The material under "geography" that reads more like either history, or architectural styles. Yes you are correct, the reason for this is that the geography section originally had a "built environment" sub-section which highlighted more town planning issues than geographical. This was created at the request of a former peer reviewer who suggested it would be useful. Perhaps I should reinstate the sub-heading to separate the distinction with geography? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.
 * My hunch is to re-instate the subheading. Let's see how that goes. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcwesty (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All good. cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Closing review
Thanks McWesty, that looks better, and well done getting the picture of the other church as well as a cite for the Mondrian inspiration. I'm passing this at GA. Some thngsstill to do:
 * The references are not all in the same format, particularly the retrieval dates on web sources. Go through them for consistency.
 * The tone is still not entirely neutral. It still reads as thought written by someone very enthusiastic about the town - i'm glad you are, it's just that it shouldn't show through too much. I'm assuming you don't work for Fife Council or anything like that - if you do, that would probably be a conflict of interest - which would be worth mentioning on the talk page. But you've done a good job regardless. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)