# Talk:Chiswick Mall

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chiswick Mall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Urve (talk · contribs) 12:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I will begin reviewing this soon. Thanks, Urve 12:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


### History
#### Early origins
the river Thames - small point, but I like the decision to leave river uncapitalized
Noted.
Hounslow 2018 is prepared by an instrumentality of the borough, so the name you use is totally fine; but you may consider that the specific division that prepared it is the "Spatial Planning and Infrastructure Team" of the borough's "Regeneration, Strategic Planning and Economic Development" department. not likely to be helpful for the citation, but your call as to relevance and value
Well, team and department names can change rapidly; in the context, the key point is the Borough's name really.
can we get an explanation of what "prebendal" is in prose? the wikilink is helpful, but it is an uncommon enough term that it may be helpful to explain precisely what the connection is between this manor and the church without relying only on the word prebendal
Glossed.
use of c. is fine; you may consider {{circa}}
No worries, done.
in the second paragraph, the several clauses after one another reads a bit awkwardly to me. something like this would help, at least for me: "St Nicholas Church, Chiswick was built in the twelfth century, and by 1181, the settlement of Chiswick had grown up "immediately east" of it. The prebendal manor house was founded as a stone building c. 1100; it was demolished around ..."
Done.
I am not entirely sure what the image is helping us understand with its caption. We highlight the Old Vicarage but that has not been introduced in the prose yet. I see the relevance of Fisherman's Place given the last sentence, but the Vicarage is not entirely clear. What was the intention?
To show the still-rural state of the area at that time; edited the caption.


#### Changing land use
who is John Bowack? you explain who he is later in the article; may consider swapping where his explanation is
Well spotted, fixed.
I love the use of the engraving
Great.
I was initially wary of until late in the nineteenth century but that is what the source says, so I think it's okay. (Their claim that by the 1910s there was development, so it had to be in the late 1800s, is not very convincing to me, but we are guided by RSs, not what I think.)
Noted.
I initially questioned the wikilink for purification going to sewerage, but on reflection it is fine
Yes, the scheme has had a huge impact.


### Setting
Great
Thank you!


### Grand houses
1589-90 - en dash instead of hyphen, yes?
Done.
you say Walpole is the finest house, but the source indicates (through Bowack) that Grove was also viewed as the finest. (though Walpole is labeled the finest there.) how can we reconcile this?
One of.
who is Nikolaus Pevsner?
Glossed him.
described as late 17th and early 18th century - how so? in style? in evidence that it was constructed then? not too sure what precisely this means
Edited.
Of the same period is the Grade II pair of three-storey brown brick houses, Lingard House, with a dormer, and Thames View - what is a dormer?
Wikilinked.
Brilliant
Thanks.


### Culture
I am not so sure we can say that Open Gardens are periodically offered based on the citations we have. what do you think? the first showcases current access, and the second is a specific event. am I missing something?
Edited.


### Lead
very, very good. maybe we can mention that it has been represented in popular culture? details may not be necessary.
Good idea, done that.
That is all I have for the prose right now. I haven't taken a look at the copyright information for all of the images, but for what I did, they look good. The sources are reliable and support the statements (note the issue I have in culture). Urve 13:04, 1 July 2021 (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: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

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: 

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: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
All rationales are valid. I had concerns with File:Houses - Chiswick Mall - drawing - John Belcher architect.png (author not entirely known) but the publication date makes it fine
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Your photographic additions are beautiful, relevant, and add much value to the article.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Unfortunately, there is not too much more to say here. You have already curated a wonderful article, and with the revisions you've made, I am convinced it meets the GA criteria. Congratulations and best of luck on your future ones! Passing shortly, Urve (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)