# Talk:Sharpe, Paley and Austin

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sharpe, Paley and Austin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 21:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


### Initial comments
I've now done a very quick read of the article, but I've not checked any references or citations. Within these constraints, the article appears to be at or about GA-level, I'm therefore going to continue this review in more depth, starting at the History and works and finishing with the Lead. I need to have this finished within on week, but I don't anticipate that the review will take that long. Pyrotec (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

History and works -
untitled first subsection & Edmund Sharpe -
These two subsections appear to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.
Sharpe and Paley -
Just a note: the North Western Hotel, Morecambe and the Midland Hotel, Morecambe are mentioned by name in Carter, Oliver (1990). An illustrated history of British Railway Hotels: 1838-1983. St Michael's: Silver Link Publishing, but unfortunately it fails to name the architect(s) for the North Western Hotel.
This subsection appears to be compliant.
E. G. Paley -
This subsection appears to be compliant.
Paley and Austin -
This subsection has Hubert Austin down as a non-event: "(he) ...joined Paley in the practice as a partner. ... Following his arrival, the work of the practice continued much as before, with both ecclesiastical and secular commissions.". This seems to somewhat at odds with the wikipedia article on Hubert Austin which has various verifiable quotations: which appears to state a very different view. I accept that wikipedia is not a reliable source, but when one article (a GAN) has Austin as a "non-event" and the other, given as a {{main}} is quoting:
Hubert Austin was involved in the design of more than 100 new churches, mainly in Gothic Revival style, and in many church restorations.[3] His work has been highly praised. Price comments that he "brought to the practice great talent and energy".[1] Pevsner was of the opinion that it was he "it seems, who was responsible for the firm's masterpieces".[4] When he came to the practice "the character of the architecture of the firm changed – a nobility and at the same time resourcefulness appeared which had not until then been seen in its products".[5] Elsewhere Pevsner describes him as "brilliant" and of raising the work of the practice "to the level of the best in the country".[6] In the Buildings of England series, Austin is described as a "local man of genius" with whom the firm "achieved greatness, distinguished for their thoughtfully creative designs with masterful handling of space, line and plane",[7] and who transformed the firm into a practice which decorated Lancashire ... with churches the equal of any in the country".[8],

I'm likely to conclude that this subsection does not adequately reflect was is given in the {{main}} article. Sorry, I did not notice that this subsection is continuing with two sub-subsections. I'm going to strike out these comments of mine. Pyrotec (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The two sub-subsections Ecclesiastical works and Secular works provide much detail in respect of the works carried out by this partnership and, as such, concentrate exclusively on the work of the the partnership rather than the personalities. I've crossed through by earlier comment (for the reasons given above), but perhaps there could be scope for commenting on personality, as per Hubert Austin? I'm likely to award this article GA-status regardless of whether it is included, or not; but since I've raised the question here, it will remain "on the record" of this review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I entirely sympathise with your comment.  The problem is that the practice records were destroyed, so we do not have as much evidence as we should like about the internal working of the practice; in particular, during this partnership, details about who did what — all the works are attributed to both partners.  There is circumstantial evidence from the changes in the nature of the designs, but this is not strong enough for firm conclusions.  I do deal (briefly) with the relationships between the partners and their personalities in the section "Practice organisation and personalities", and give special mention to the quality of Hubert Austin's work in the section "Appraisal", and hope this is enough for GA level. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Peter. Reviewing tends to be a linear process, with loops: sometimes it is necessary to modify earlier comments comments as a result of what follows later in the article. I will bear that in mind. Pyrotec (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I have to agree with your comments above: no further action is needed to this section. Pyrotec (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Paley, Austin and Paley & Austin and Paley (1895–1914) -
These two subsections appear to be compliant.
Austin, Paley and Austin & Austin and Paley (1915–44) -
These two subsections appear to be compliant.
Architectural styles -
A "strong" informative section, fully compliant.
Patrons -
Compliant.
Practice organisation and personalities -
Compliant.
Appraisal -
Compliant.
WP:Lead -
This section is intended to both introduce the topic of the article and to provide a summary of the main points in the body of the article, and it makes a reasonable attempt to cover both of these functions. However, I don't believe that any of the points that are made in the final three sections, Patrons, Practice organisation and personalities and Appraisal are summarised in the Lead. Overall, these three sections form a minor part of the article, but on the basis of WP:Lead, I would have expected a minor mention of possibly some of these points in the summary.
At three paragraphs, the lead is broadly compliant with WP:WIAGA, clause 1 and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section so I'm not going to put the review On Hold, but I do consider that there is scope for minor improvements (see also below). Pyrotec (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative, well referenced and well illustrated article on this practice of Lancashire architects.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
The Lead is competent, but there is perhaps scope for improvement.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Well illustrated with relevant images.
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Well illustrated with relevant images.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I'm awarding this article as I regard it as a "strong" GA and I also regard it as having the potential of making FA.
In the case of any WP:FAC nomination, I'd suggest that possibly the WP:Lead could do with a critical appraisal. At three paragraphs it is about optimum in terms of length (three or four is the recommendation); and it provides both a reasonable introduction to the topic and a summary of the main points in the body of the article, appart of the last three short sections which don't appear to be summarised by the Lead. These occupy a fairly minor proportion of the article and therefore would be expected to occupy only a minor proportion of the lead, but they seem to be absent. Note: the three sections together are comparable in length with the Architectural style section, which is summarised.
Congratulations on fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)