Talk:Dukes Meadows/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 22:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This is my second GA review, and I am taking this as I am looking to learn more about reviewing GANs and would like practice—this is a short nomination. Regardless, I love English geography so I am excited to review it :) 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 22:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent!

• Thanks for the interesting article! Please ping me once you have addressed my concerns. I will put the article on hold for a week for the time being. No hard feelings if you wish to respectfully disagree with any of my points; we can try to work it out. Cheers, 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 22:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEatsTuna - all done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! I added some comments. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 19:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEatsTuna - I think those are all done now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, the article is now in a sufficient enough condition to pass! Congrats—and thank you for the amazing work and a fascinating article. I still think the lead could possibly be expanded slightly to include some of the preceding history, but a GA can always be improved and I am very satisfied with how it is; it certainly meets the criteria. Thanks, 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 22:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Copyvio check

• "40,000 people (more than the population of Chiswick at that time)" might be problematic; perhaps rephrase by stating how much more the population would have been than Chiswick's at the time?

• The source doesn't say, but there seems no reason to worry here. The population in 2011 was 34,000 so back in 1902 it was certainly less than that.

Images

• Dukes Meadows 20170616 132037 (32750483997).jpg: good, CC-BY-SA 2.0;
• Grove Park area on Sheet 021, Ordnance Survey, 1868-1883.jpg: good, public domain rationale valid;
• Dukes Meadows New Promenade and Bandstand 1926.jpg: good, valid non-free image rationale, downscaled;
• Dukes Meadows Paddling Pools in use soon after 1926.jpg: good, same as above;
• The remaining images were all taken and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons into CC-BY-SA 4.0 by nominator.

• Noted.

• Four images accompanied by image galleries on an article of this size seems somewhat excessive to me. Could some of them be removed at all? This is particularly problematic on mobile screens. I would recommend trimming Dukes Meadows Trust and having only three 'thumb' images instead of four.

• I've just scrolled through it now on my mobile and it seemed simple and unproblematic, indeed clear and informative even given the small size of the mobile thumbnails. The images under 'Trust' are certainly of encyclopedic value as they show the diversity of construction and activities undertaken, from allotments to play to orchard. I've moved 2 images to 'Creation' to form then/now pairs, which again are certainly encyclopedic. The ensemble seems to work smoothly and I hope you like the result.

• I do actually really like that! I have boldly moved the lone image in Farmers market, allotments, and sports to a thumb view as I think it looks better than having a single image in a gallery. I hope it looks alright.

• OK, it looks a bit lonely in either format actually.

• Poor image ):

Lead

• The lead is relatively short; I reckon it could be expanded to include a longer summary of the meadow's history.
• Dukes Meadow Trust makes sense to me in bold text, but I do not think Chiswick Farmers' Market should also be in bold.

• Well, it's arguable; it is an organisation, it has a section, and it redirects here, as the Trust does, so the two are certainly comparable, though the Trust is perhaps more distinctive in its work. I've removed it for now.

Body

• "Grove Park district consisted of orchards and meadows, with a farmhouse" suggest removing comma; seems unnecessary here?

• Removed, but we do that sort of thing in British English.

• "and grounds from the Duke of Devonshire" non-British readers may be unfamiliar with this wording; link Duke of Devonshire—unlink its second mention in Creation—and state who the Duke was at the time.

• Update on this?

• Done. Linked Chiswick House; "its grounds" is the usual phrase for this, meaning the lands (park, orchard, gardens) that belong to the house.

• "In 1928 the new Central Electricity Board dropped the plan, as other" move the comma to after 1928 (judging by its usage throughout the rest of the article)?

• Any update?

• Added comma. The second comma separates the main clause from the explanatory clause.

• Thanks for the explanation!

• "the deal was opposed by residents and rowers alike." Rowers?

• Yes, rowing boats, especially for racing, are and were abundant here.

• Okay. I see that paddling pools are mentioned later in the article.

• Ah no, boats on the river... linked.

• "and opened by the Prince Albert, Duke of York (later King George VI) in 1926." Is the Prince Albert correct?

• Removed.

• The text under Farmers market, allotments, and sports could be a single paragraph.

• Well, it could, but it actually covers a different topic, the allotments and other functions which are not run by the farmers market, so the paragraphing looks well justified here.

• That is fair. Both sentences looked fairly short, but I think it looks better now that is has been combined with the erstwhile Taskmaster section.

• "and in 2006, it became the Dukes Meadows Trust" I reckon this should not be in bold as it is already in bold in the lead.

• Yes, removed.

• "and in the words of the London Borough of Hounslow's report Duke's Meadows Regeneration" sounds un-encyclopaedic, suggest rephrasing.

• Not sure why you'd think that, it's simply an attribution to a named source to support the quotation that follows.

• I have just not seen "in the words of" used in a Wikipedia article before. I could be wrong about its formality though.

• Guess this is a British English usage; it's quite usual.

• Noted.

• In popular culture is lacking a citation.

• Cited. That snuck into the article this weekend. I've moved it to where the golf course is discussed.

• Good call.

References

The refs are okay and support the article's content. Formatting mostly consistent. I have access to the The Times via ProQuest from the Wikipedia Library, and a Google Books snippet confirms the text of Jack of Jumps.

• Ref 10's website is rendered as Dukes Meadows.com whilst 11's is dukesmeadowspark.com; either way is correct but they should be consistent.

• Fixed.

• Recommend archiving the other non-archived web sources (non-books) where possible.

• Tool made no changes.

• Oops! Looks like it may be down. I have added these manually.

• Thanks!

Others

Navboxes, cats, templates and coords all good.

• Noted.