Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Focus E15/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SusunW ( talk · contribs) 14:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I'll take this one. Am looking forward to collaborating with you again. SusunW ( talk) 14:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for picking up the review, I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on the article. Mujinga ( talk) 15:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Formation

  • Formed when?
  • How do we know the hostel was called Focus E-15? Source says "a homeless hostel"? Okay, it gives the name in the Watt abstract and the Amara piece in the Independent, please add citation.
  • How do we know they were under 25? Source says "young", but I note Amara verifies the info. Please add cite to the Independent article by Amara.
  • Watt is paywalled. Please mark as subscription needed. Also can you input page # via {{rp|x}} throughout, or is it a web view? (I cannot access.) If it is a webview, perhaps mark the reference "(Web page does not indicate pages)" or something similar.
  • The Evening Standard is paywalled. You either need to mark it as subscription needed, or better yet, remove the live status, as it can be read in full at archive.org
  • failing to show appropriate respect to a member of the public is a direct quote from the source. Either attribute the quote and mark it as such or reword.
  • Is show flat a model or a showroom? Perhaps link to that?
  • Would fake living space be better described as a model? It seems to me that if it was designed as a living space, it isn't fake, but the intent is not for it to be habitable.

Carpenters Estate

  • Yes, also for me, but that's a technical thing and we all know beyond my skill. LOL
  • The Independent is paywalled. You either need to mark it as subscription needed, or better yet, remove the live status, as it can be read in full at archive.org.
  • Can't answer that. I have never been able to access the Independent from Mexico. I am registered with the Guardian. If I don't sign in I can only see a few articles before I have to log in or I get nada.
  • I note you say immediately went to court, but the article mentions no timeline and says "Bow County Court". I am assuming that is a court in Bow, London, but that is confusing because our article on Stratford, London says it is in Essex County and part of the Borough of Newham. To my unfamiliar eye, it looks as if the city was fiddling with the jurisdictions, but then I see in the Stratford article that it was originally in Bow. Perhaps you should link to Stratford, London? Unsure if naming the court will cause others to have the same confusion I did. On the time, I see the immediacy because Amayra says on 28 September 2014 that the council was studying ways to remove them, but by the time the BBC piece was written on 2 October, they had filed suit. Suggest you add a cite to the BBC piece.
    • If i look up bow county court it says its postcode is E15 4EG and E postcode area says E15 is partly in bow, so i think that's ok, but you are right the boundaries of bow might well have been redrawn since the court was set up. I don't know if it's necessary to identify the court in the article Mujinga ( talk) 12:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, as I said, probably will just confuse people like me .
  • Are you calling Andrew Baikie "a local councilor" because of BLP concerns or is there another reason for omitting his name?
  • I thought probably, but you know I rarely do living people. Dead folks are easier.
  • Ditto for photographer Jess Hurd, why call her "a photographer"?
  • The Telegraph is paywalled and even inaccessible in archive.org. Mark it as subscription needed.
  • The Newham Recorder link is dead, but available in archive.org. Change url-status.
  • Maybe it's just me, but argued they had been housed permanently instead of temporarily in the hostel is confusing. Seems like they are upset that they were provided permanent housing. Perhaps, "as their temporary placement had stretched on for three years", or something similar.
    • source says: "she and other residents at Brimstone House were coming together to present a legal challenge to the council over the fact that their temporary accommodation was turning out to be anything but short-term." - i've rephrased 12:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Mujinga ( talk)
  • Much clearer. Thanks!

Individual cases

  • cool except now you have Saafan and her children and we don't know who that is. "She and her children" would be better.
  • Insert after children were evicted "in 2015"
  • Not a problem, just something I noticed as being different from your usual citations.
  • I don't see the film reference in Ramiro, but I do see it in Booth. Fix cite.
  • Insert comma after wider family and replace the mother with "Wood's mother".
  • Who is she? Clarify it was Wood, not her mother, who was invited to meet with the council.
  • Can't access Newham Recorder again. (Perhaps they are blocking me from Mexico?) Change url-status, as I can access from wayback link.
  • empty East Ham police station perhaps would be clearer by saying "the empty building which was formerly" the station?
  • possibly omit redundancy by replacing one of the uses of "empty" in the same sentence with vacant?
  • After emergency accommodation insert "in 2014", which is implied in the source (18 mos prior to 2016) but stated outright in Hopps, which you might add as a citation to confirm date.
  • Can't access Newham Recorder articles by Hopps, Long (2 articles by Long), or Burford. Change url-status to dead as I can read all of them on archive.org.
  • or moved their server or whatever. Fortunately they were all available in wayback. Good to know it isn't a "Mexico ban".
  • All of the above dates are fine. Was just trying to build the time line and show it was repeated over a span of time.
  • Dammit! I want to know.

Miscellaneous

  • Sourcing appears to be RS, but article names mostly are not in title case. Not a deal-breaker on a GA, but if you are going for FA it should be corrected.
  • Fine with me.
  • I get it. I try to remember, but sometimes this one in particular I forget.

Checklist

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c ( OR):
    d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


That's it from me. Mostly nitpicky stuff on an interesting and well written article. Thank you for writing it and bringing it up to GA standard. SusunW ( talk) 19:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Mujinga I think we are done except for the one little failure in anonymizing the women who were evicted. If you fix that, I can approve the GA. Truly enjoyed working with you again. SusunW ( talk) 16:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    OK deal, changes made. Thanks so much for a very thorough review! Do you think this could be a FA? I hadn't really thought about it to be honest but maybe I could put it to peer review and see what comes. Mujinga ( talk) 17:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I am no expert on FA, but I think most articles have the potential to become that. As I said above, I usually work on dead people for a reason. I don't want to spend a lot of time working on an article which will substantially change because life happens. That would be my hesitation here too. It's an active organization dealing with a serious rights issue which could substantially change quickly. I'd weigh that before I put in a lot more work, but I was truly serious that I appreciate your work on housing rights. It is such an important issue. Approving the GA now, but the technical stuff will take me a bit, because well, you know... SusunW ( talk) 17:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for this comment, I think I have similar concerns which have prevented me from having it on my list of FA possibles. Looking forward to future collaborations with you! Mujinga ( talk) 08:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Focus_E15&oldid=1207256453"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Focus E15/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SusunW ( talk · contribs) 14:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I'll take this one. Am looking forward to collaborating with you again. SusunW ( talk) 14:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for picking up the review, I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on the article. Mujinga ( talk) 15:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Formation

  • Formed when?
  • How do we know the hostel was called Focus E-15? Source says "a homeless hostel"? Okay, it gives the name in the Watt abstract and the Amara piece in the Independent, please add citation.
  • How do we know they were under 25? Source says "young", but I note Amara verifies the info. Please add cite to the Independent article by Amara.
  • Watt is paywalled. Please mark as subscription needed. Also can you input page # via {{rp|x}} throughout, or is it a web view? (I cannot access.) If it is a webview, perhaps mark the reference "(Web page does not indicate pages)" or something similar.
  • The Evening Standard is paywalled. You either need to mark it as subscription needed, or better yet, remove the live status, as it can be read in full at archive.org
  • failing to show appropriate respect to a member of the public is a direct quote from the source. Either attribute the quote and mark it as such or reword.
  • Is show flat a model or a showroom? Perhaps link to that?
  • Would fake living space be better described as a model? It seems to me that if it was designed as a living space, it isn't fake, but the intent is not for it to be habitable.

Carpenters Estate

  • Yes, also for me, but that's a technical thing and we all know beyond my skill. LOL
  • The Independent is paywalled. You either need to mark it as subscription needed, or better yet, remove the live status, as it can be read in full at archive.org.
  • Can't answer that. I have never been able to access the Independent from Mexico. I am registered with the Guardian. If I don't sign in I can only see a few articles before I have to log in or I get nada.
  • I note you say immediately went to court, but the article mentions no timeline and says "Bow County Court". I am assuming that is a court in Bow, London, but that is confusing because our article on Stratford, London says it is in Essex County and part of the Borough of Newham. To my unfamiliar eye, it looks as if the city was fiddling with the jurisdictions, but then I see in the Stratford article that it was originally in Bow. Perhaps you should link to Stratford, London? Unsure if naming the court will cause others to have the same confusion I did. On the time, I see the immediacy because Amayra says on 28 September 2014 that the council was studying ways to remove them, but by the time the BBC piece was written on 2 October, they had filed suit. Suggest you add a cite to the BBC piece.
    • If i look up bow county court it says its postcode is E15 4EG and E postcode area says E15 is partly in bow, so i think that's ok, but you are right the boundaries of bow might well have been redrawn since the court was set up. I don't know if it's necessary to identify the court in the article Mujinga ( talk) 12:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, as I said, probably will just confuse people like me .
  • Are you calling Andrew Baikie "a local councilor" because of BLP concerns or is there another reason for omitting his name?
  • I thought probably, but you know I rarely do living people. Dead folks are easier.
  • Ditto for photographer Jess Hurd, why call her "a photographer"?
  • The Telegraph is paywalled and even inaccessible in archive.org. Mark it as subscription needed.
  • The Newham Recorder link is dead, but available in archive.org. Change url-status.
  • Maybe it's just me, but argued they had been housed permanently instead of temporarily in the hostel is confusing. Seems like they are upset that they were provided permanent housing. Perhaps, "as their temporary placement had stretched on for three years", or something similar.
    • source says: "she and other residents at Brimstone House were coming together to present a legal challenge to the council over the fact that their temporary accommodation was turning out to be anything but short-term." - i've rephrased 12:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Mujinga ( talk)
  • Much clearer. Thanks!

Individual cases

  • cool except now you have Saafan and her children and we don't know who that is. "She and her children" would be better.
  • Insert after children were evicted "in 2015"
  • Not a problem, just something I noticed as being different from your usual citations.
  • I don't see the film reference in Ramiro, but I do see it in Booth. Fix cite.
  • Insert comma after wider family and replace the mother with "Wood's mother".
  • Who is she? Clarify it was Wood, not her mother, who was invited to meet with the council.
  • Can't access Newham Recorder again. (Perhaps they are blocking me from Mexico?) Change url-status, as I can access from wayback link.
  • empty East Ham police station perhaps would be clearer by saying "the empty building which was formerly" the station?
  • possibly omit redundancy by replacing one of the uses of "empty" in the same sentence with vacant?
  • After emergency accommodation insert "in 2014", which is implied in the source (18 mos prior to 2016) but stated outright in Hopps, which you might add as a citation to confirm date.
  • Can't access Newham Recorder articles by Hopps, Long (2 articles by Long), or Burford. Change url-status to dead as I can read all of them on archive.org.
  • or moved their server or whatever. Fortunately they were all available in wayback. Good to know it isn't a "Mexico ban".
  • All of the above dates are fine. Was just trying to build the time line and show it was repeated over a span of time.
  • Dammit! I want to know.

Miscellaneous

  • Sourcing appears to be RS, but article names mostly are not in title case. Not a deal-breaker on a GA, but if you are going for FA it should be corrected.
  • Fine with me.
  • I get it. I try to remember, but sometimes this one in particular I forget.

Checklist

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c ( OR):
    d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


That's it from me. Mostly nitpicky stuff on an interesting and well written article. Thank you for writing it and bringing it up to GA standard. SusunW ( talk) 19:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Mujinga I think we are done except for the one little failure in anonymizing the women who were evicted. If you fix that, I can approve the GA. Truly enjoyed working with you again. SusunW ( talk) 16:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    OK deal, changes made. Thanks so much for a very thorough review! Do you think this could be a FA? I hadn't really thought about it to be honest but maybe I could put it to peer review and see what comes. Mujinga ( talk) 17:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I am no expert on FA, but I think most articles have the potential to become that. As I said above, I usually work on dead people for a reason. I don't want to spend a lot of time working on an article which will substantially change because life happens. That would be my hesitation here too. It's an active organization dealing with a serious rights issue which could substantially change quickly. I'd weigh that before I put in a lot more work, but I was truly serious that I appreciate your work on housing rights. It is such an important issue. Approving the GA now, but the technical stuff will take me a bit, because well, you know... SusunW ( talk) 17:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for this comment, I think I have similar concerns which have prevented me from having it on my list of FA possibles. Looking forward to future collaborations with you! Mujinga ( talk) 08:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Focus_E15&oldid=1207256453"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE