# Talk:Architecture of Bedford Park

This review is transcluded from Talk:Architecture of Bedford Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Xx78900 (talk · contribs) 12:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Lede
In regards the lede section, though I don't think it fails any of the GA criteria, I think that the writing could be improved somewhat. I find the choice to not wikilink Chiswick, West London, and Flemish strange. I would say "with elements of many other styles featuring in some of..."
Done. No strangeness, just overlooked the familiar.
I know nothing about this particular detail so I defer to anyone who does, but is the word "British" necessary in "British Queen Anne Revival"? It is absent in the linked article title on Queen Anne Revival architecture in the UK.
Sorted.
Personally I'm not a fan of how the second paragraph flows, I would rather it read: "As well as domestic buildings, the Bedford Park estate contains a group of public buildings, namely its...". Also in the second paragraph, I'm unsure what is meant by "its club"? As I say though, this is personal preference and doesn't impact on GA suitability.
Reworded and wikilinked.
Context
I think this heading is better renamed "Historical context", as it does not explore the architectural context in which Bedford Park was built.
Done.
A mixture of styles
Again I find the lack of wikilinks to be a peculiar omission. I would wikilink to May, Adams, and Shaw's respective pages.
Linked.
I think the word "harked" is very casual. Perhaps "drew upon" would be a better fit?
Reworded.
Richard Norman Shaw
Queen Anne Revival style is linked a second time in the body of this article.
Fixed.
Maurice Bingham Adams
I think "lost to a" is quite flowery language, destroyed by / severely damaged by would fit better in my opinion.
In British English it's rather plain really, but I've changed it anyway.
The relevance of the green plaque isn't clear to an unfamiliar reader, could that be briefly explained?
Glossed.
C.F.A. Voysey
Is there a justification for abbreviating only this man's name?
Some architects were known by first names, others by initials, as is (often, as here) reflected in the titles of their articles.
Fritz Ruhemann and Michael Dugdale
Should this be "with a curving sun roof"? also I would wikilink sun roof.
Ah, a subtle change of syntax and style. Done. However the sunroof article only deals with the automobile fixture.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Noted.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Noted.
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Noted.
C. It contains no original research: 
A quick spotcheck of the sources is a bit sketchy.
Source 1, though it does focus on Bedford Park, verifies only one of the claims that are attributed to it. In the section Context, it makes no mention of steam trains, nor that the City of London is a 30 minute ride away.
Ah, this is on Clegg's "Housing Schemes" page.
In the section Edward William Godwin, it makes no mention of either the Buidler nor of him and Carr parting company.
Ditto.
In the section Henry Coe & Stephen Robinson, it makes mention of neither Coe nor Robinson!
Added a source.
In the section on Richard Norman Shaw. Source did not verify claim that Shaw was "the leading architect of his day", nor does it make any mention of 1877 whatsoever.
Again, Clegg's "Housing Schemes" page gives the basic details; Pevsner and Girouard already cited say much more.
The only claim attributed to source 1 which it verifies is that May did in fact live no.6 Queen Anne's Grove. during the 1880s.
Noted.
Source 3, no issues.
Source 6, no issues.
Source 7, no issues.
Source 8, no issues.
Source 12, is a Wordpress site which is not ideal, but to be fair, it doesn't seem to be the worst source. What is troubling though, is that it makes no mention of the Tabard Pub or the Chiswick Playhouse, which it should be confirming.
12 is Archiseek "1879 - The Tabard Inn & Stores"; it's a database of descriptions, plans, and elevations of historic buildings. If it's in the Wordpress engine, well, that's an implementation detail. Added the Historic England listing of the Tabard and a ref for the theatre.
Source 18, no issues.
Source 21, no issues.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Fine in spotcheck
Noted.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Weak fail on two aspects. I think more could be said about Coe & Robinson's contribution, and I think that the church doesn't get as much detail provided as the pub and the club, though I accept that the main article is also linked. Even so, I think all of the public buildings could do with a slight expansion.
The church, the Tabard pub, and the club all have their own articles already, so it is largely a matter of taste how much to repeat here; I've added a little more for you. On Coe & Robinson, I've added a bit more about them, and a ref.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Noted.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Noted.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Noted.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Noted.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Noted.
Though not a requirement for GA status, I wonder what the rationale is for having the majority of images centered in the article instead of on the right hand side, as per MOS:IMAGELOCATION?
Because we sometimes have multiple images, and it seems preferable in an architecture article to have some sort of visual uniformity of presentation. The alternative would be to have an image on the right, sometimes, with multiple images in the centre, sometimes, and occasionally the images-on-the-right overflowing into the next section, aka, a mess.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Hi there, I've decided to review this article.Xx78900 (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The article has been carefully researched, written, and cited. I have over the years worked together with many different co-editors and reviewers, and am accustomed to resolving issues large and small promptly. Should you find faults with it, could we please work through them in the usual way, even if it takes time. Often, things that seem large problems need only the briefest of reorganisations and all suddenly is well. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I've finished the review, let me know if you have any questions! Xx78900 (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
All concerns addressed. Happy to pass this article.Xx78900 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)