Talk:Grenfell Tower fire/GA1

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 00:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Building

 * Will come back and do a full comment on the LEAD at the end of the review, but for now there is too much citing of sources in the LEAD. In general only controversial statements and quotes need attributing in the lead of a GA - everything else should be a summary of what's in the body article (where it would then be appropriately cited). This is especially egregious in the second sentence - those basic facts are not, to my understanding, controversial and even if they are 6 citations is WP:OVERCITE.
 * And while we're on the subject, OVERCITE is rampant in this article in general. The article needs a detailed round of editing to address this problem through-out - I will not point out other specific instances of this for now except to note that we should not have 6 cites where 3 might do and 3 where 1 might do (e.g. In the aftermath of the fire, members of the local community, including a residents group called Grenfell United.

Building

 * Suggest re titling this section to "Background" or maybe "History", and making the first paragraph part of the next subsection which could be "Building and construction"
 * A resident of the area is not a reliable source for the first sentence of this section.
 * A source from 2009 does not verify that KCTMO was the largest TMO at the time of the fire.
 * The Telegraph article "We are just as important as everyone else, say Tower homeowners" does not support all the facts in the two sentences it's support, notably that some leaseholds had been privately rented or under what purpose the building was initially built for.
 * This source doesn't seem to be supporting anything in the sentence it's a cite for.
 * What makes Emporis a RS? Also because it's behind a paywall taking on GF that it supports the facts in that sentence.
 * Note 1 suggests that the building had 28 storeys (please accept my advance apologies if I end up using US spellings for anything as we go) but 4 of them were mezzinenes? How does this hold true with The lower four storeys were used for non-residential purposes.?
 * I question whether the Guardian's live coverage of events is RS or if it's more akin to a reliable author tweeting about something? E.g. facts in breaking news can be wrong in a way that would get fixed through more normal editorial controls. In other words should what is currently source 34 be used?
 * It seems like the total number of apartments could have a secondary rather than primary source.
 * Does Like many other tower blocks in the UK, Grenfell had a single central staircase. Unlike in many other countries, UK regulations do not require a second. belong in building or elsewhere? Genuine question as single sentence paragraphs aren't great.
 * Similarly the Whitebread quote could really be incorporated into the main paragraph rather than being its own one sentence paragraph Edit: It looks like this was removed altogether? Any reason for this?
 * The sentence The tower received new windows, a water-based heating system for individual flats ... does not have a working citation
 * Is there a secondary source for The purpose of the cladding was to improve heating and energy efficiency, and external appearance? Given how important the cladding is to the topic it seems best to have that be from a reliable independent secondary source rather than PRIMARY.
 * Same concern for the next two sentences
 * The sentence The original contractor, Leadbitter, had been... needs its own inline cite (repeating a citation is obviously fine)
 * From source that's present it seems unclear if "The contract was put out to competitive tender" or it was put back out to competitive tender
 * The sentence The cladding was fitted by Harley Facades... should have a secondary source
 * Is there a reason for using this Italian source (as of now source #52)?


 * In 2013, the group presumably this is the Grenfell Action blog/group?
 * by a TMO Health and Safety Officer by a generic TMO or a KCTMO?
 * I am skeptical about the GAG information in general on NPOV/OR grounds. We should only keep information that can be cited back to The Guardian and other secondary RS.
 * Which Whitehall? In March 2015, at the request of Whitehall...


 * However, the government suppressed the report until February 2019 is not supported by the source.
 * There's another one sentence paragraph in Safety.
 * The Lakanal House fire information needs better sourcing - not all of the information can be supported by the current BBC cite
 * I'm not sure that the Barwell quote should be a quote rather than a summary
 * What is the LFB? Guessing it's the London Fire Brigade but this should be clearly stated.

Discussion
Four months after first thinking about doing this review I'm actually getting to it. By way of process, I've read this article once (in December), and will not do a detailed read through, also checking sources. This will likely take me several days to complete given this article's size and so I will post as I go along. Feel free to begin implementing changes before the review is complete or responding with any questions/comments/pushback about any parts of the review as I go along. I will definitely finish this by Friday evening (US time) because starting Saturday I will be somewhat or entirely inactive, and to whatever extent I have Internet it will only be on mobile, for a week. If we haven't finished the review process by then we'll pick it back-up when I return to Wikipedia April 21/22. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've completed the detailed reading for the Building section. As this took me considerable time, before I continue for the rest of the article (which I remain happy to do) could some editor or group of editors confirm that they remain prepared to do the work needed to bring this up to GA standard? Ideally this would be by actually starting to do some of the work suggested/needed above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly able to implement improvements. I have addressed some of the points on the list above. Anywikiuser (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that a mass reversion was particularly constructive- it probably would have been more constructive to have reconstructed the broken references- just a comment- it is a value judgement. It is noted that major improvements are not complete until they have been previewed and references fixed. ClemRutter (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , as I mentioned on Anywikiuser's talk page, had it been one or two broken references, I would have mended them. As there were so many, and imagining what a reader would think, looking for the source of some bit of information and finding naught but a large red error message, I chose to revert the change. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the onus is on the editor not to break them in the first place, not for others to have to clear up a mess. ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now reinstated the edits (which took me a few hours to prepare) with the references fixed. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll note there is one broke citation now but that was present from before. We're nearly a couple of weeks out from the work I did on the review above. I've noted which items have been addressed so far - it's less than half. I am a firm believer that GA is a collaborative process and with willing and competent editors just about any article that is nominated can pass. However, this article is on the far side of the spectrum for "needing work" as there are substantial sourcing concerns, among other things, which remain. Given the slow pace of changes and the huge amount of time an article of this size would take to do in the way I like to do GA I am going to change course. My current plan, therefore, is to stop my detailed read and to address in broader strokes the state of the article below so that interested editors have a sense of what they can work on ahead of a potential renomination. There's far more good than not in this article but its scope and the fact that it was truly collaboratively written does mean that getting it to be GA will require more capacity than it seems like we have for this process at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's an important topic. Perhaps it would be good to look at how the various sections stand up; some are definitely better than others. Anywikiuser (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary Review
Prose: Overall this is well written MOS: As noted above there are issues with OVERCITE and the lEAD might be too short given the length of this article Ref Layout: Uses an appropriate reference layout. I am not as much of a stickler on this as some others so I haven't looked about things like consistent formatting of references. Since this is a concern for some reviewers editors might wish to look at this before any renomination. RS: Not all content is appropriately in-line cited OR: It's likely fine but since detailed review of the article was not completed, listing this as neutral. Copyright: No discernible issues found. Broadness: Covers whole topic Focus: This is borderline in the current article and would need deeper review to adequately assess. Given that this page has been edited in "real time" as events have broken it seems like it is overly detailed in parts running into NOTNEWS problems. Neutral: Similar to OR, it superficially seems fine but more detailed review of sources could indicate otherwise. Stable: Has been stable enough for GA but listing as a question mark since this could be a problem before a future GA Tagged Pics: All pictures are appropriately licensed for use Relevant Pics: I see some potential issues here as there seems to have been an effort at including every picture we could find. I have also not checked captions for suitability.