GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 17:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Detailed comments

Lead

Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've name dropped a few late-17th century aristocrats in to emphasise this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was just thinking the same - have another look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Eric Corbett 23:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gentrification

Ah that's probably my "back to front" copyediting - rather than working from an article top-to-bottom, I work on whichever bits are easiest first. Also, there are too many "including"s in the article so I've knocked out a couple. I blame trying to multi-task, which blokes are crap at. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline

Yes, that shouldn't be there, we've already talked about the incident enough in the preceding section, so I've trimmed that down. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent history

The source (The London Encyclopedia) didn't say, but I found another one that says it was 1976. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre and film

I've cut the second part of the sentence - the recognition of gay rights was more about the Civil Partnership Act 2004 rather than Soho itself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can lose the second part of that sentence, it's quite long as it is and simply stating the facts as stated should suffice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants and clubs

I've split this into two sentences, and reworded it - however I've yet to see a source that says "Bertie" actually did dine publicly with Lillie Langrty, only that it was hearsay and rumour; to have the future monarch having a public affair at the height of Victorian Britain would have been utterly shocking. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source in question gave the impression that the close was the last one and it was never reopening; however, I've just discovered it's reopening today, so I've removed the last bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

A more substantial issue is that the source given does not say that (nor explains how Betjeman was involved with a restoration project six years after he died). I've got another source and reworded all this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Split the sentences Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Streets

Split sentence and reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed as redundant - It was in the article as I found it and since both parts were either unsourced or not particularly well sourced, I wasn't sure which was going to be developed the most at the time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Corbett: Any other issues? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No more nitpicking from me, I think we're done here now. Eric Corbett 13:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, insightful comments and good copyediting as always - also good to see you getting back into regular GA reviews. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.