Talk:Gordon House, Chelsea/GA1

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

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 06:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

(Note: review was opened by Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 06:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC), who did not proceed with the review. Review reassigned to KJP1 as of 06:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC).)

Quick fail criteria assessment

 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * See 2b below.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * See 2b below.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Articles passes quick-fail assessment. Main review to follow.

Main review
1. It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * The prose would benefit from an edit. There are instances of repetition, both of facts, and of words/phrases, and, overall, it needs tightening up for GA. I give some examples below:
 * Lede
 * Fine, but see 1b below.
 * History
 * "The land on which Gordon House now stands was originally the site of Walpole House" - Not all of it, Gordon House only took a piece of the site.
 * "the residence of Robert Walpole" - does he need an introduction? "the residence of Britain's first Prime Minister, Robert Walpole."
 * "..sculpture Neptune and Triton stood in the octagon Summer house of Yarborough's house. Lord Yarborough sold the house to the British Government in 1808." - You've got "house" three times in 9 words; I don't think "Summer house" needs a capitalisation, and should it be "octagonal" as a description?
 * Soane and General Gordon
 * Did the Colonel get a promotion? If so, it should be mentioned to avoid confusion, otherwise it should be corrected to Colonel.
 * "recently re-acquired Yarborough House" - had Yarborough House previously been part of the Hospital? "Acquired"?
 * "the lease of the site to Colonel Willoughby Gordon for the construction of a villa. In 1809 Colonel Gordon had acquired an 80-year lease of what had been a part of the Yarborough House grounds, on which he intended to build his villa." - These two, adjoining, sentences are almost a repetition of each other. And I think only part of the Yarborough House site was leased. Perhaps; "due to the sale of an 80-year lease on part of the site to Colonel Gordon for the construction of a villa"?
 * "Soane was successful however in persuading Gordon to slightly alter his plans for a villa but the construction of the villa ultimately meant that Soane's plans for a new infirmary were never realised." - It doesn't sound as if he was very successful. And you've villa twice. Perhaps; "Soane managed to persuade Gordon to make slight alterations to his plans, but the villa's construction meant that Soane's intended infirmary was never realised"?
 * "Gordon's villa, designed by the architect Thomas Leverton," the architect's already been mentioned, 2 paragraphs above.
 * "stands on raised ground that once experienced panoramic views of the River Thames" - I don't think the ground "experienced" the views, rather the villa. And does a building "experience " things? And, are the views now gone? Perhaps, assuming the views are gone - due to construction between the house and the river? - "stands on raised ground that once gave panoramic....."
 * "was converted into a residence for the nurses of the infirmary two years later. It served as staff quarters from 1956 after being converted into four separate flats." - This confuses me. If it became nurses' quarters in the 1890s, what was different as to its use "from 1956"?
 * 2012 sale and conversion
 * "A private entrance to the house is located in Tite Street" - "..on Tite Street."?
 * b (MoS):
 * A few suggestions/queries below:
 * Lede
 * A bit short for a GA?
 * You've 4 citations in the lede. It's not a deal-breaker but, as material in the lede should appear in the main article, I favour the approach of citing the information in the body, rather than in the lede.
 * References
 * The ODNB, which appears as a source, is formatted differently to the others. And see 2b below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references)
 * A few issues below:
 * Reference 3, ODNB - This doesn't link.
 * Reference 5 - This doesn't appear to work.
 * References 8 and 9 - These appear dead - which makes them unverifiable. This is rather critical as they're the sources for 10 of the article's citations.
 * Reference 13 - This takes me to the FT paywall. Another choice?
 * Gordon's "80-year lease" is mentioned twice and cited to Reference 9, which I can't check. But Reference 12, which I can access, refers to "a term of 99 years." Not sure what to suggest, as I can't check Ref. 9.
 * Also on the lease. The lede says the house became part of the hospital after Gordon's death in 1851. But the final paragraph of the History section says this didn't happen until after the expiry of the lease in 1889, or a bit later. Can't check as the Reference isn't working.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * One issue, linked to the above, below:
 * The ODNB is cited as a source, but I'm getting a Harv warning as it doesn't link to anything. It's given as Reference 3, but there's no link.
 * c (OR):
 * I see no evidence of Original Research.
 * d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):
 * No evidence of plagiarism or CV.

3. It is broad in its scope
 * a (major aspects)
 * I think the article does have problems with its scope. I detail the issues I see below.
 * Too little on the architecture of the building; I agree the usual sources are slim; I can't find it in the relevant Pevsner, (but it is only Grade II), and Historic England and British Listed Buildings Online have little to say. But virtually the only description we have is that it's a "large, detached house" of "three storeys." I just don't think that's enough. Its building materials, its architectural style, the reasons for its Grade II listing etc. get no mention at all, and I think we need something on these aspects. In their absence, and without a photograph, one has little idea from this article as to what the building actually looks like. This may help a little.
 * Too little on the history; There is insufficient detail on the history of the building, and too much on its near neighbour, The Royal Hospital (see below), including Yarborough House. The whole of the first paragraph of the History section relates to that building. This would be fine if we then got a similar level of detail on Gordon House, but we don't. What there is of the history of that building, I find a little confusing and sparse. The site of the house is (part) of the site of Yarborough House, but the article's not clear whether Yarborough House remained, or was replaced, while Gordon House was constructed in part of the grounds. Aside from that, we know it was built in 1809 (although the article's again not clear), was the venue for a dinner in 1814, was let in 1889, and became staff accommodation for the hospital in 1956. Then, the lease was sold in 2012. That's all we get, for 200 years of history. I definitely think it needs some expansion. This  has a fair bit on the setting of the house. And this  gives an interesting insight into Parliamentary opposition to Gordon's plans.
 * b (focused):
 * Again, I think the article has problems with its focus. I detail the issues I see below:
 * Too much on Soane; We do get quite a lot of history on Soane's plans for the Royal Hospital. These clearly were influenced by, and had an impact on, Gordon's villa.  But we get 4 paragraphs on Soane's plans, which is imbalanced when compared to how much we get on the history of the subject of the article, Gordon House.  I would suggest some vigorous trimming.
 * Too much on the 2012 sale; Here we have 5 paragraphs on the 2012 sale which is again seriously unbalanced. In a nutshell - the lease was bought by Christian Candy and given to his brother, who has plans for the place. It doesn't need the detail or emphasis given to it in the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy
 * The article is Neutral. :

5. It is stable
 * The article is Stable. :

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * The absence of a picture of the house is, in my opinion, a problem. I think GA Architecture articles should really include an image unless there's a good reason not too. Criterion 6 says articles should be illustrated "where possible". This building is standing, it's in a major population centre and it's visible from the public highway. Moreover, there are many images on the web, although I haven't been able to find a usuable (no copyright issues) one. But there must be one.
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * See above.

7. Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: Overall, this has many of the elements of a Good Article, and its subject is interesting. But there are some significant issues, detailed above, which I think need addressing before it can Pass. I've therefore put it On Hold and hope to work with the nominator to make the necessary changes.
 * Grateful for the Comments below, which have been very helpful. Shall let the nominator know we're On Hold. KJP1 (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it looks like the nominator isn't able to respond to the review at present. I'll drop a note on their Talk page and close the review in 24 hours if I haven't heard anything. Hopefully the review, and the comments below, will help in the future when the nominator's able to pick up the article again. KJP1 (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the nominator hasn't been able to respond to the issues raised. I'm therefore going to fail the article at this time but I very much hope it'll be possible for the nominator to pick it up in the future and address the concerns. I'll drop the nominator a note. KJP1 (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments
It seems a great pity not to have a photograph or two of the house if the article is to be presented as "good", given that it still stands and can readily be imaged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems reasonably well written. I am participating for the first time in a good article nomination, here in the comments opposed to doing a review myself. I hope to help, I previously participated in FAC, but I would like to see how GA works. I have a few comments, I am not sure to what extent they are valid in relation to receiving GA status, that said here they are: --User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 16:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't like the subheading "Soane and General Gordon", mostly it seems the article could do without it.
 * I felt like a something connecting the sale to the government and the possible usage by the Hospital could be useful. I felt like the Soane's plans were something of a non-story, story of something that did not happen, this is more encyclopedic if it was bought with the intention of being used by the Hospital and then there was a change of heart, as it is it seems Soane just dreamt up something by himself and then it didn't happen.
 * Also the "sale" section, seemed a bit unencyclopedic. I don't know if "property market news" is really encyclopedic.
 * The underground passage to be built: it's hard to understand that it's 'from the house to the royal hospital', that does seem relatively seems important as part of a "giving back to the government", a quid pro quo.
 * The "quid pro quo" part of the question seems important - there was local "consternation" regarding the sale and it was accepted only because of the "drastic" or "drastically improper" conditions at the Royal Hospital, which the money from the sale/lease will be used to improve. This part is barely covered.
 * There is no mention of the Grade II status, when it gained it for example. Don't know if this is a problem. I find it really strange that it's one of it's categories but it's not mentioned at all in the article.

Review stalled?
If there's a problem with this GA Review, I'd be happy to pick it up. In fairness, I should say I think there are problems with the article. In brief, the big issues appear to me to be:
 * No photograph in an architecture article, as mentioned above, (Criteria 6);
 * Too little on the architecture of the building; (3a);
 * Too little on the history (3a);
 * Too much on Soane (3b);
 * Too much on the 2012 sale (3b);
 * The prose could do with an edit, e.g. "..Summer house of Yarborough's house. Lord Yarborough sold the house.." - "house" 3 times in 9 words and an inappropriate capitalisation. (Criteria 1a).

Let me know if you'd like me to pick it up. KJP1 (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * KJP1, it has been over a month since I first posted a query to Wilhelmina Will's page asking if she'd be coming back to review the nomination, and despite intermediate pings, she has not replied despite being active elsewhere on Wikipedia. The reviewer has clearly abandoned this review, and you are free to take it over immediately if you'd like. If you decide not to, please let me know; in that case, I'll put it back into the pool of unreviewed nominations (with no loss of seniority) so that it can find an active reviewer. Thank you very much for your interest in giving this a proper GA review. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset, very happy to pick it up from here. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)