Talk:Savile Row/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 16:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Will do the review. Beginning first read-through: more soonest. Tim riley (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that this article does not seem to me to approach GA standard. A Good Article is written very well, contains factually accurate and verifiable information and is broad in coverage. I found the prose poor, with inconsistent use of British and American idiom, confusion between singular and plural, and misspellings and grammatical errors. These can be cleared up fairly easily, as can the howler about the origin of "bespoke". More worrying is the breadth, or lack of it, of the coverage. Can a section of less than 200 words really be a proper coverage of the architecture of the whole of Savile Row, particularly when an earlier paragraph on the Beatles gets well over 100 words? There is a lack of proportion here. By far the longest section is devoted to tailoring, which would be entirely reasonable if it were not that there is an existing (and evidently pretty good) article devoted to the same topic.

I shall put the review on hold. I attach a list of drafting and other points that may be helpful.

• Lead
  • "creators of the dinner jacket or tuxedo, opened an entrance to his tailoring premises – plural or singular?
  • "Bespoke" – put not your trust in journalists. That magazine article falls into a common error. This is what the word expert Michael Quinion says: "It is often said that the word originally referred to cloth in a tailor’s shop that had been spoken for, that is, it had been reserved for a particular customer and so was unavailable to anybody else. The historical evidence shows this is not the case; it is a well-meaning but incorrect attempt to come to grips with this old sense of the verb bespeak." The Oxford English Dictionary concurs with Quinion.
  • "declined to just 19 in 2006 – this would be better without the editorialising "just".
  • "who are working in partnership – see WP:DATED
  • Not sure of your rationale for blue links: the RGS gets one but Westminster City Council doesn't.
• History
  • "first on Cork Street, about 1790, then by 1803 in Savile Row" – rather jarring switch from American idiom (on Xxxx Street) to English (in Zzzz Street)
  • "Henry Poole, credited as creators of the dinner jacket or tuxedo, opened a second entrance to his…" – as above – singular or plural?
  • "declined to just 19" – WP:EDITORIALIZING again
  • "are working in partnership with Westminster Council" – as above, WP:DATED
• Tailoring
  • The opening repeats information already given in the previous section, right down to the confusion between "on" and "in".
  • "through Edward VII's patronage, helped make the street fashionable" – but you have told us earlier that it was already fashionable in the previous century
  • the term "bespoke" – faulty etymology, as above.
  • "customers … have included…" I can find no rationale for the order in which you list these five customers: they are not in alphabetical or date order.
  • "on Savile Row – rather than the English "in Savile Row" used earlier. More American "on"s spotted below, too.
  • "presently covering" – WP:DATED
  • "Anderson & Sheppard was founded … They were defined" – singular or plural?
  • "England World Cup team" – in which sport?
  • "the company is still operating … now under the control" – WP:DATED
  • "and the MD of the Beatles Apple Corps" – MD: musical director, managing director?
  • "pioneer 'open windows'" – no explanation is given of this term, the meaning of which, in the present context, is unguessable
  • "as such" – unclear what this phrase is there for
  • "so Savile Row tailors" – "so" masquerading as a conjunction
  • ""Cool Britania" – was it really misspelled thus?

Happy to discuss further if wanted. – Tim riley (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Copied here from User talk:SilkTork

I have reviewed the article for GAN: comments at Talk:Savile Row/GA1. Happy to discuss if you wish. Tim riley (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Afterthought: I have been pretty horrible, but you can pay me in my own coin if you feel like it: I have BBC Symphony Orchestra up for GA. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the review finished? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not finding it easy to follow your copy editing notes. Rather than me asking you to clarify the points - could you do the minor ones directly yourself. I think that will be quicker and easier, and we can then look at what is left to discuss. And no, I didn't think you were horrible at all. You've reviewed the article and left your thoughts on where you feel the article doesn't meet the GA criteria. That's what happens. And I'm pleased you picked it up so quickly and have been prepared to get involved. Where do you think you've been horrid? Granted, a long list of minor copyediting points doesn't look good, but such an approach is very common - especially in FAC, so I don't see that as being unusual or unpleasant. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you're happy for me to wade in and edit? I'm willing to have a go, but the changes I'm looking for are substantial enough that I think I may then have to ask another editor to take over the GA review, as I'll be a significant contributor. Any changes I make will not improve what I see as the faulty balance of the article, but that will then be for another editor to decide. Please ponder. Tim riley (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but the list you have left appears to be mainly minor copy-editing - spellings and so forth. I'll take another look. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks for doing the review, and for the comments so far. I'm afraid I'm a little busy at the moment, and need to put whatever Wiki time I have into dealing with some ongoing commitments - which I am behind with, so if somebody is willing to deal with the copyediting mentioned above that would be useful. If not, then please don't worry about closing the review as fail. I will get around to looking into the points raised, but it's unlikely to be in the immediate future. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for second reviewer

I've tidied the article up, and have in so doing added so much that I think I must hand over to another GA reviewer. Tim riley (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Copyediting and fixing minor problems is the sort of thing that reviewers are encouraged to do, so no worries that you are now disbarred from reviewing. I think you have somewhat misunderstood bespoke. I am still tied up at the moment, and have other matters which are calling for my attention, but I will try to get around to adjusting the bit about bespoke soon. The word as reference to the making of a suit does originate in Savile Row using the word bespoken. The word bespoken then transferred from "speaking up" to ordering goods to the making of a suit. As "black" in English originally meant "white", and other languages do still use variations of black for white (French "blanc" for example). The transference occurred when blacksmiths heated metal until it was white-hot, so they could work it. They called this process "blaecen" - and would say: "That metal has been blaecen", pointing to a piece of metal which of course now looked black! But I think you're right that mention of bespoke wasn't clear before, and does need attention. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Points all taken, but I remain unconvinced about the proportions of the article – too much tailoring and not enough architecture, me judice – and I'd be happier if another editor brought a fresh pair of eyes and took over the review. Tim riley (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pleased you've left this open. I should have some time to look more closely next week. My suggestion with the architecture is that material is left in the History section, rather than sticking out in its own section. There is more material in the British History source, but only as regards fine detail - the essential points are in the article. I created the section with both the intention of developing it further, and also to indicate that Savile Row has more about it than just tailoring. But, really, the architecture is not what Savile Row is known for - especially as most of the architecture that might be interesting is no longer there. Trying to make a case for the importance of the architecture was perhaps a little inappropriate on my part. As you indicate somewhere - the Beatles are more associated with the Row than the architecture, and there is no special section for them. The other concerns are the "bespoke" question, and prose and reference citing. I should have time to read through the article carefully next week to tidy up those matters. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I just did some edits on the points remaining. What else do you feel needs doing? And does what I have done meets your concerns? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Imdb is not a reliable source officially on here. Please fill out Refs 23, 25, 37, 38, 39, 44, 47, 48, 49. 50, 51, 52, 55, 58,60 with adequate full citation templates showing publisher information. My feeling is that given this is on Savile Row which undoubtedly has a staggering number of reliable sources that you haven't really done the breadth of research needed to make this GA and beyond. I see potential but my feeling is that it needs a lot more work on it, particularly on covering its architectural aspects in detail and producing a better balance of coverage as Tim says. I'm happy to help with improving it at some point if this is desirable to you Silk, but I agree with Tim that it isn't there yet.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, dig in. I am hoping to be less tied up after the weekend and should be able to focus then. But this is certainly not a priority or major interest for me, so if it is felt that the article needs a bit of work, then I have no quibble with it being failed. I think concerns on the architecture might be addressed simply by not having a separate architecture section. The street is not notable for its architecture, but I felt it was worth bringing to the fore somewhat as a matter of interest, and as a possible development for the future. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for those comments. Can you be more specific on what you feel has been left out? As regards what material is available in sources - mostly it's about the tailoring, and much of the material that is available needed to be sifted quite carefully as there is some misinformation. Information on clients is really hard to pin down - especially as when doing the research, it turns out that a number of the people "famously" associated with the Row, actually used tailors from the neighbouring streets or even elsewhere in London. If you have a specific topic or fact that you feel hasn't been dealt with under "broad coverage", then I'll be happy to take a look. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick scan over the article. This is not ready for GA status yet. It doesn't feel complete in terms of research and the prose could do with some refinement.Farrtj (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the changes made since all the above comments have considerably improved the article. It now has a solid structure: the indefinable feeling of flimsiness that troubled me has been corrected. If nobody thinks I am too compromised by wading in at the edit page in the past week or so, I will be happy to resume the GA review. Equally happy to cede the job to anyone who thinks it inappropriate for me to carry on. Tim riley (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The edits you have done would not be considered to make you a substantial contributor; however, if you feel uncomfortable with carrying on, I understand that. It's really about how you feel. I have no problem with you either carrying on or closing. Some editors find it awkward to come in on a review and take over - preferring to start from scratch. So closing this now as not listed would be fine, as GA is really a casual process, and I can simply put it back in the queue. That might be quicker and easier than waiting for someone to take over. Up to you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)