Talk:The Angel, Islington/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 08:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest,  Tim riley  talk    08:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary comments
This is an enjoyable and well-sourced article, which will meet the GA criteria, in my judgement. A few preliminary quibbles:
 * Lead
 * "site of the Angel Inn from the 16th century, is on lands belonging to the Clerkenwell Priory and has been rebuilt several times between the 17th and 20th centuries" – this sentence goes off the rails twice. First, it seems to say that the site still belongs to the priory, which I don't imagine has been so since Henry VIII nationalised the monasteries. Secondly, the site has not been rebuilt: the buildings have. I recommend splitting this sentence in two, one dealing with the former ownership of the site and one dealing with the rebuildings across the four centuries.
 * Done - I mostly rewrote this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Early history
 * "The first building in this area of London" – very hard to prove a negative, I know, but are the sources quite clear that the Sheepcote was the first building rather than just the first one we know about?
 * I think this was the first building documented in the sources - it's unlikely to be the first one ever, so I've redone this bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "It was being used as an inn" – the last noun before this was the parish boundary. We need a new noun here – the site or some such.
 * Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 17th – 18th century
 * "The inn acquired a significant reputation" – what did it signify? A pity to waste "significant" as a mere synonym of "considerable" or "popular".
 * I've removed this - the mention of Hogarth and the drawing (put in after this text if I recall correctly) is a more neutral way of describing the same thing Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "of what is now Islington High Street and Pentonville Road" – is it only the High Street that is the complement of "is now"? If Pentonville Road is included as well, we need "are" rather than "is".
 * Added "the junction of" which clarifies this <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "a monument on Islington High Street" – use of the Americanism "on So-and-so Street" rather than the traditional British "in So-and-So Street" seems uncalled for and regrettable, here and elsewhere in the article. I notice this Americanism gaining ground in England lately, but let us resist the invasion as long as possible. Your call, of course, as "on So-and-so Street" is not actually wrong – merely alien.
 * Well to me, "x in Islington High Street" implies it is physically on the road surface eg: "a traffic island on ...." or "get in lane markings on..." - does that make sense? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 19th century
 * "In 1880, the Angel was refurbished internally for future large-scale pub owners William Henry and Richard Baker" – this is a false title with a vengeance; the pain can be removed by turning the order round: "… for William Henry and Richard Baker, who became large-scale pub owners".
 * Done <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "A panel on a secondary floor balcony" – what is a secondary floor? If it means the second floor, best just to say that.
 * It's me making a typo :-) - fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "The station has some of the longest escalators on the London Underground system" – true, but this information doesn't belong in the 19th century section. Until a big redevelopment 20 years or so ago there were only lifts (and damned slow they were!)
 * Since this has nothing to do with the building, I've removed it <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Cultural references
 * "until its gentrification in the 1980s" – you must go by your sources, of course, but I'd say the gentrification of Islington was well under way in the 1960s.
 * Tim Moore's book says, on the page cited, "This part of Islington, gentrified so ruthlessly in the last twenty years" - as that was published in 2003, that makes it verifiable to 1980s. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "only site on the board named after a building" – I'd be inclined to omit this or add a footnote. (King's Cross, Marylebone, Fenchurch Street and Liverpool Street stations are also buildings that are sites on the board.)
 * Well technically the stations are multiple buildings, sheds and railway platforms. And isn't a "Water Works" a building of sorts? More to the point though, the plaque (and the source verifying it) says the Angel was the only building. I suppose we could change the inscription to a direct quotation? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Neil Gaman" – I imagine this means Neil Gaiman
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. No need to put the review on formal hold for such minor and easily dispatched queries. Over to you.  Tim riley  talk    12:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything left here to deal with?♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All that's left is so minor that I can, without impropriety, tidy it up. I'll do that and then pass the article for GA. But thank you, Doc, for looking in.  Tim riley  talk    08:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed all the issues one way or another. Sorry, I didn't get in from the recording studio last night until 1am and I'm cream crackered :-/ <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Drat! I was hoping to change all your "on" x Streets to "in" while you weren't looking. I hope the recording went well. Meanwhile...

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:

Excellent job. We Islington dwellers are in your debt.  Tim riley  talk    17:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)