Wikipedia:Peer review/Jewellery Quarter/archive1

Jewellery Quarter

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am aiming to get the article to at least Good Article status and then Featured Article status but would like to know of any changes that could be made beforehand that would give it a greater chance of receiving such a status. I have compared the article with the criteria for a Good Article and it seems to me that it has met all of the points, however, there is always a chance that my bias has come into play considering I have put so much work into it recently.

In short, suggestions for Good Article status will be good. Suggestions for Featured Article status will be great!

Thanks, Erebus555 (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing: I will be pleased to review this article. When I think an article has FA potential I tend to review with that aim in mind, on the grounds that if you work for FA, then GA is almost guaranteed. As this is rather a long article I will probably review in instalments, the first of which should follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This part of the review deals only with the lead and Origins section.
 * Lead: does not conform with FA lead requirements, which say that it should be a complete summary of the article, not just a brief introductory outline. Also, some specific points:-
 * "It is covered by the Ladywood district." What does this mean - that it is within the Kadywood district? If so, say so clearly.
 * In UK it is normal to give acreages followed by metric equivalents rather than the other way round. Thus "...in an area of 264 acres (1.07 km²)."
 * "It is synonymous..." needs to be "The area is synonymous..."
 * "...has declined much throughout the 20th century" is rather quaint phrasing. I suggest delete "has" and say "declined significantly during the 20th century." – ending here with a full stop.
 * Start a new sentence: "Efforts have subsequently been made to transform the quarter into an urban village, a hub for creative businesses, while retaining its urban fabric."
 * What is an Anchor Point in the sense used here?


 * Origins: This section is far too detailed, and goes way beyond what is required – a concise history of the origins of Birmingham's jewellery quarter, showing why the quarter came to be established in this particular location. What you have here is a mass of material concerned with Birmingham's growth and development as an urban manufacturing centre, with odd snippets relating to the development of jewellery businesses. It is very hard to follow. If I have understood the position correctly, the salient facts are:-
 * The growth of Birmingham as an industrial and manufacturing centre during and after the Industrial revolution
 * The release by the Colmore family of part of their lands, to be used for housing the increasing town population
 * The infiltration of manufacturing businesses into this residential area and consequent changes to its character
 * After the establishment of the Assay office nearby, a tendency for businesses concerned with jewellery and goldsmithing to establish themselves in this area, thus creating a "jewellery quarter".

It is possible that I have misunderstood the story you were trying to tell. However, if my summary, above, is broadly correct, the "origins" story can be told in four short paragraphs. Try to maintain a clear chronology so that each paragraph leads naturally to the next. Even if I've got things wrong, the true story will be better told if you can lose much of the non-essential padding.

I will leave the review here for the moment, and see what you have to say before resuming. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, sorry for my delayed reply - I didn't notice it on my Watchlist! And secondly, thanks for putting your time into producing this feedback.


 * I was always sure that the lead was not going to conform to FA criteria - and writing a good lead is not one of my strong points, I admit. I will try to encourage other editors to help edit the lead. Although, the bulletpoints you have posted are easy enough for me to sort out. The inclusion of the Anchor Point reference was connected to the first half of the sentence mentioning its historical importance. I have had trouble trying to place it in a reasonable context elsewhere in the article, so I ended up using the lead as 'a dumping ground' for it.


 * As for the Origins section, this is supposed to give information on the development of the area from rural land to an urban area and how the expansion of Birmingham and its industry played a part in this, as it was very much Birmingham's industrial prominence that led to the Jewellery Quarter's establishment. The story of the change to residential then to industrial is told here. However, I have had to use specific examples of such houses and factories because the references available dealt very much on the specific examples and not on the generally story of the transitional change in the area. Your summary is partially correct but it over-simplifies how the quarter came into being because it almost ignores the ways how manufacturers did infiltrate the area. Nevertheless, I acknowledge there may be some unessential material in there and I will try to deal with that, I look forward to the following installments to your review! Thanks! - Erebus555 (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While my simplified summary may not be wholly adaequate for your purposes, it is perfectly possible for you to write the story of the changes to the area in a general, summary style, citing specific examples as references; the specifics dan't have to be in the text. Otherwise you will find that over-detailng continues to affect the article.
 * There is also the question of maintaining a clear chronology through the various stages of your narrative. As read on I find further problems both of chronology and detail. The Growth section begins with an undated statement about the quarter's output surpassing that of Derby. In the next sentence you mention Edinburgh's jewellery trade at the end of the 19th century, but then jump back to 1850. This is confusing for the reader. I also think that, as with the Origins section, some details could  be summarised or omitted.
 * I shall continue to read the article and to raise further points, while the review remains open. My other commitments mean that my comments may be a bit sporadic. I do have a particular interest in the article, as in the 1990s I founded a jewellery and gemmology school in London; my co-director was a product of Birmingham's Jewellery Quarter, where he trained and worked for any years.


 * Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)