Talk:Pentonville Road/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 11:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * " after the contemporary new town of Pentonville, that encouraged manufacturing to move out of the city and into suburbia" -how contemporary? Perhaps change to "emerging new industrial town of Pentonville" or something like that.
 * I've changed it to "new town" but linked it to planned community (which is where typing "new town" takes you). The only reason I was apprehensive about calling it a "new town" straight is that term is normally used for things like Milton Keynes, Bracknell and Cumbernauld which came along a lot later. However, it does fit the textbook definition of what a "new town" is ie: a deliberate attempt by a government to resettle people away from an older urban centre. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "As industrial manufacturing fell out of favour in London in the late 20th century, many properties have now become residential, or contain student accommodation" -I would remove ", or contain" to just "residential or student accommodation".
 * Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * History
 * "A by-law was passed forbidding the construction of any building within 50 feet (15 m) of the side of the road.[10]" -a bit vague, a year and name of the law would be encyclopedic.
 * I would speculate it's the London Building Act 1844 but I can't find a source for it. Part of the problem is a valid search on Hansard and the London Gazette is not going to return on "Pentonville Road", at best it will be "New Road" or possibly "the road from St Pancras to Islington" or some similar demarcation. I'll have to get back to you on this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, I've cracked it, because what was in the article didn't make sense. There was a bylaw demanding houses were 50ft back from the road in the 18th century, which was then increasingly ignored in the 19th as the road became more built up. This then fits in with the "Properties" section, which are talking about businesses from the mid-19th century onwards, the buildings of which survive today, and none are anywhere near 50 feet back! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "In 2015, students refused to pay rent after rooms there were found to be infested with cockroaches and mice.[" -seems a bit trivial and offbeat in the context of the article
 * Agreed. I think I put this in struggling to get the article up to a decent length, but then I found the relevant place in the Survey of London that goes in-depth into several properties. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Link 16mm ?
 * Why not. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Cultural
 * "The poet John Betjeman's parents worked at No. 34–42 Pentonville Road. The firm, G. Betjemann & Son had been established since 1859, and produced the Tantalus drinks cabinet." -not clear if you mean G Betjemann was at no.34-42 and the two sentences are otherwise not connected,
 * The specific text in the source I'm drawing off is "other craftsmen were living and working here, including, from 1859, G. Betjemann & Sons, makers of dressing-cases and other specialist cabinetwork, at No. 36 .... One of its most successful products, patented in 1881, was a decanter-holder called the Tantalus, ... After Betjemanns went into liquidation, Nos 34–42 ...." I've copyedited this for clarity. Should be move this to the "Properties" section? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Up to you, it's not stopping this being promoted!

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 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: ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)