User:Thehelpfulone/London

Comments from Aude
Questions about some of these sources were raised at the last FAC, and don't seem addressed yet. I have not been through the rest of the article with detailed checking of sources, but again it appears that a lot of web-based sources are being used, when surely a huge amount has been written about London in more reputable or scholarly sources. I would like to see better sources for this important topic. --Aude (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/lpol/ - this appears useful for finding quality sources about London, among other places to look. --Aude (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth

 * The following sources need page numbers:
 * Current ref 11 (Mills, David...)
 * Current ref 17 (Sassen, Saskia...)
 * Current ref 41 (Pepys, Samuel..)
 * Current ref 71 (Collins English Dictionary...)
 * Current ref 72 (Oxford English Dictionary...)
 * Current ref 120 (Sassen, Saskia...)
 * Current ref 169 (Colin Larkin...) Note that the author should be listed last name first for this reference also.
 * Current refs 18 and 19 refer to wikipedia articles? Or are you referring to the study? If so, you need more information than given, including publishers, and page numbers.
 * I find the history section being sourced to The Museum of London and the BBC websites to be a bit ... underwhelming as far as sourcing. There are plenty of printed works on the history of London, they should at least be consulted for differing scholarly views on the history.
 * http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jX8ZAAAAIAAJ&q=rebuilding+of+london&dq=rebuilding+of+london&pgis=1 is a google search snippet, which don't allow the full context of the work to be understood. It's always best to consult the printed source and read it to get the full context of the author's meaning.
 * Current ref 78 (LondonA History) is a book. it should be formatted as such, with an author, publisher, and page numbers. Hopefully the whole work was consulted rather than just the google books search that's presented.
 * There is no need to run publisher names into the link titles. Examples include (but this isn't exahustive) current ref 81 (BBC News..) Current ref 85 (Met Office..) 58 (BBC...) etc.
 * Current ref 104 links to a web page summary of an article. Are you referencing the article itself? If so, you need to format it like an article, not a web page. If you are just referencing the summary/abstract, what makes this a reliable source?

Comments from Johnbod

 * Oppose The sourcing remains unimpressive. The "History" section, for which there are hundreds of books available, is almost entirely sourced to websites, even if reliable ones. The architecture section is even worse. No mention, or link, is made to Squares in London, when the garden square is London's unique contribution to archiecture; there is next to nothing on housing in general. There should be a picture of a square too, now the gallery has been removed. A look at both public/office buildings, and housing in most of London shows that the statement as made is highly unlikely to be true.  The "average" building in London is probably a 1930s semi.  The section jumps from the Great Fire to Battersea Power Station.  No mention of Wren churches, Hawksmoor, or the significant late 17th or 18th century areas that remain largely intact - Soho, St James, Bloomsbury, never mind Regency or Victorian areas.  With arguably the best museums in the world, but schools & universities few would make such claims for, the museums  should not be tucked away under "education" right at the end.  Equally there is only a passing mention that there is a "theatre district", when London theatre is one of the things that make it distinctive among the world's large cities.  Without going overboard, pulling together a section on "visitor attractions", with statistics etc, would seem sensible, since the article will inevitably mostly irritate more than inform actual Londoners, & is likely to be used mostly by visitors. The prose remains unexciting & sometimes unacceptable - "Later important depictions of London from the 19th and early 20th centuries are the afore-mentioned Dickens novels, and Arthur Conan Doyle's illustrious Sherlock Holmes stories."