Talk:Old Chiswick/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More anon.  Tim riley  talk   20:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Preliminary digression, as one whose family home was in Keswick, Cumbria I take a dim view of other Cheese Farms muscling in, but yours, irritatingly, seems to have got in first. I shall try not to let this prejudice me.
 * Thanks Tim! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments
Nothing to frighten the horses, and certainly not worth formally putting the review on hold for.


 * Lead
 * "The street still floods on high spring tides" – this isn't mentioned in the body of the text, and according to WP:LEAD there didn't oughter be anything in the lead that isn't in the main text.
 * Added to Geography, and cited.


 * St Nicholas Church
 * dates from 1882-4 – needs attention from the MoS point of view: full four-figure years and an en-dash rather than a hyphen.
 * Format is now pukka.
 * except for the surviving west tower which was built for William Bordall – could do with a comma after tower, to make the clause non-restrictive (i.e. descriptive rather than defining) otherwise there is the theoretical possibility that there are other surviving west towers that were built for someone else. Yes, I know, but it's as well to be as precise as possible,
 * Added.
 * and an exceptional one in the south chapel – who says it is exceptional?
 * Historic England (aka English Heritage), the citation immediately following; they call it "a very fine monument". Allowing for the dry style of official listings, a jaundiced eye, and English understatement, that is a truly exceptional heap of praise. Repeated the ref just in case.


 * Industry
 * "drawdock" could do with a blue-link or explanation.
 * Linked.


 * Chiswick New Town
 * north-westwards – but you don't hyphenate southeast, southwest and northeast earlier. Either is fine, but it would be as well to be consistent.
 * Fixed.

Try as I may, that is all I can find to complain about. Over to you.  Tim riley  talk   20:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Tim, I'm glad you liked it! I shall expect an article on Old Keswick very soon! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All fine now, and completely up to GA standard in every respect, in my view (and a thoroughly enjoyable read), so...

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: