Talk:Wine Street, Bristol/GA1

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

Reviewer: WPCW (talk · contribs) 12:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Initial Review

The initial review was completed at the time and date recorded on this entry and does not consider any content changed after its completion. The review was based on the six good article criteria,

Well Written

Verifiable with no original research

Broad in coverage

Neutral

Stable

Illustrated

Well-written

The article content is well-written, concise, well structured, and no spelling and grammar errors.

Arguably, because they are open to interpretation, the article does not fully conform to the Manual of Style due to the use of bold and italic text in a few places. Please see MOS:ITALICS and MOS:NOBOLD

Verifiable with no original Research

A check using anti-plagiarism software found no copyright problems. The article contains a few issues about referencing. It is based on a range of reliable sources.

Consideration needs giving to the use of quotations. The Manual of Style guidance is that articles, when possible, should be written in the editors’ words, keeping the number of quotes to the minimum. On the occasions when quotes are used they need correct attribution, especially when any material may be contentious, see MOS:Quote and WP:SUBSTANTIATE .The manual also says the relevant the page number is required in the citation when applicable, see WP:CITEHOW

My interpretation is that when using a quotation from physical sources, such as a book, the citation needs to include the page number. In the Wine Street today section, some comments are made about the aesthetics of various buildings that may be a point of view and needs clear attribution to the person making it. For example, negative comments about the Prudential building, Vintry building and Southey House. These sentences have two citations, one apparently an advertising feature for the landlord. I assume the other source gave the negative comment and not the landlord, but this cannot be left to assumption and needs appropriate citation. Consideration needs giving about citing quotations, and if a citation should include a page number. The reference list shows citations include page numbers in some instance but not others.

Paragraph one of the Wine Street section reads, ‘Pevsner describes Wine Street….’. The reference list gives Foyle as the author. Please clarified if it is Pevsner or Foyle who is describing the street?

Reference 9 uses Wikisource. Articles cannot reference Wikipedia of its sister sites, see WP:CIRC

Reference 24 requires an access date.

The reference list is a little tricky to follow because it uses chapter titles in publications without an editor. For example, reference 6, may be simplified by using the citation, Wells, Charles; Winstone, Reece (1969), Bristols History. p.1-2. An example of an edited book would read something similar to, Blog, Fred (2018) 6 Wine Street in Wells, Charles; Winstone, Reece (editors) Bristol History. p. 1-2. The suggested referencing style is just a suggested improvement, it does not form part of the review, and a matter of choice as Wikipedia does not have a set referencing system.

Broad in Coverage

The article is about a precise location and tells the general reader what they need to know about it.

Neutral

In the Wine Street today section, as already mentioned, derogatory comments are made about individual buildings. Two citations are included for the sentences including those comments, one a book, the other likely advertising material, but is unclear to which the comments are attributed. The source that has not commented about the look of the building may challenge it and argue the editors’ preference of one source over the other as being biased.

Stable

The nominator is the only none bot editor, and the article is stable.

Illustrated

The article includes appropriate illustrations that have been checked and show no apparent copyright breaches. A concern is the possibility of a challenge about the uncited quotations underneath the photographs of the Vintry and Bank of England building.

Summary

The article is a pleasure to read, but it narrowly falls short of the good article criteria. Meeting the requirements means making some minor adjustments to the formatting. Consideration about the use of quotations, and if they are kept, correctly attributing them. Addressing the referencing issues. Finally, writing the text to avoiding any possible challenges about the neutrality of the article.

Bringing the article to the required good article standard requires some rewriting, and may require accessing books for page numbers. I am unsure if the editors’ have ready access to these books. A strong possibility exists that the amendments will be made in a reasonable time-period, although not in the usual seven days allocated to minor revisions. To avoid the article failing the review and having to renominate it at a later date, I have used the discretion in the review guidelines to place the article on hold until 25th June 2018 for a further reassessment.

Please feel free to contact me to discuss of the comments in the review,

Regards,

WPCW (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your positive and helpful comments.
 * * Probably simplest to just remove the italics for the names of buildings, so I have done that. I have changed Winch Street to Winch Street, which seems more MOS-compliant and consistent.
 * * I have grouped together all of Andrew Foyle's observations in the Wine Street today section, and clarified that he makes these comments in the Pevsner guide.
 * * I have found a better ref for Cadell (ref 9). I have added this and removed the Wikisource one.
 * * I have removed the negative comments from the images.
 * * I have added an access date to ref 24.
 * * I can see that the Charles Wells/Reece Winstone situation is confusing: Reece Winstone self-published (so was a publisher) but also edited and (re)published Wells' memories. I have modified these and other refs to use page numbers rather than chapters.
 * Did I miss anything?
 * * I can see that the Charles Wells/Reece Winstone situation is confusing: Reece Winstone self-published (so was a publisher) but also edited and (re)published Wells' memories. I have modified these and other refs to use page numbers rather than chapters.
 * Did I miss anything?
 * Did I miss anything?