Montpelier, Brighton has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 14, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that before
Brighton's
Montpelier suburb developed, three people lived on the hilly site – including an eccentric corporal who lived in a cave and fired celebratory pistols on military anniversaries? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 23:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Meetthefeebles ( talk · contribs) 09:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll review...
Opening Comments
Have now read through the article. It is impressively written and at first read I cannot see any obvious drafting errors. The article appears well illustrated and well referenced.
You have dispensed with the guidance provided by WP:UKCITIES for structure, which should usually be followed "for quality and standardisation". The quality of the writing here is sufficiently high that I do not believe the "quality" is necessarily adversely affected by deviation from the guideline. Standardisation, on the other hand, does deviate (though I note that you have drafted several other Brighton articles in this manner, so arguably these are standardised themselves). That said, the guideline provides that it "is not written in stone" and can be adjusted in the interests of "common sense" (per WP:IAR). I am not entirely convinced myself that Montpelier necessarily should 'be different', but that guideline is a guideline and not a rule and it is anyway not a requirement of WP:WIAGA.
I would suggest, in future, that you consider using the guideline for structure, content and standardisation purposes.
Okay, I'll add comments here as I go, so please be patient, as I tend to be fairly thorough...
Image check
Disambiguation
WP:WIAGA Criteria
1. Well-written:
Reviewer comments
2. Verifiable with no original research:
Reviewer comments
3.Broad in its coverage:
Reviewer comments
These issues give breadth to the article as required by
WP:WIAGA. At present, the article paints a vivid picture of what Montpelier is but it does not perhaps give a picture of who lives in Montpelier.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Reviewer comments
5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Reviewer comments
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio
Reviewer comments
Overall comments This article is very close to GA but at present it lacks a little breadth; specifically regarding the people of Montpelier. Some suggestions for expanding upon this are provided above and by WP:UKCITIES. Once these are considered I will look again at the article. I cannot imagine that this will take too long, so I will place the article on-hold and await a response. Meetthefeebles ( talk) 10:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated and beautifully written article.
In light of the additions made, I am awarding GA status – well done! Please consider reviewing an article under the Good Article criteria. Meetthefeebles ( talk) 11:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The Temple is described as having "Egyptian-style pilasters and paired engaged columns of "bizarre form" with unusual capitals", but these seem to clearly refer to one feature only (I certainly do not see two different features these could apply to in the image). Since an engaged column and a pilaster are (as far as I understand) fundamentally different (the first is an actual structural element, the second is strictly decorative), I think they should only be called pilasters, as they seem to me to be unlikely to be structurally needed, strongly protruding pilasters yes, but still pilasters. Circéus ( talk) 20:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Montpelier, Brighton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Montpelier, Brighton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Montpelier, Brighton has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
December 14, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that before
Brighton's
Montpelier suburb developed, three people lived on the hilly site – including an eccentric corporal who lived in a cave and fired celebratory pistols on military anniversaries? |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 23:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Meetthefeebles ( talk · contribs) 09:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll review...
Opening Comments
Have now read through the article. It is impressively written and at first read I cannot see any obvious drafting errors. The article appears well illustrated and well referenced.
You have dispensed with the guidance provided by WP:UKCITIES for structure, which should usually be followed "for quality and standardisation". The quality of the writing here is sufficiently high that I do not believe the "quality" is necessarily adversely affected by deviation from the guideline. Standardisation, on the other hand, does deviate (though I note that you have drafted several other Brighton articles in this manner, so arguably these are standardised themselves). That said, the guideline provides that it "is not written in stone" and can be adjusted in the interests of "common sense" (per WP:IAR). I am not entirely convinced myself that Montpelier necessarily should 'be different', but that guideline is a guideline and not a rule and it is anyway not a requirement of WP:WIAGA.
I would suggest, in future, that you consider using the guideline for structure, content and standardisation purposes.
Okay, I'll add comments here as I go, so please be patient, as I tend to be fairly thorough...
Image check
Disambiguation
WP:WIAGA Criteria
1. Well-written:
Reviewer comments
2. Verifiable with no original research:
Reviewer comments
3.Broad in its coverage:
Reviewer comments
These issues give breadth to the article as required by
WP:WIAGA. At present, the article paints a vivid picture of what Montpelier is but it does not perhaps give a picture of who lives in Montpelier.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Reviewer comments
5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Reviewer comments
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio
Reviewer comments
Overall comments This article is very close to GA but at present it lacks a little breadth; specifically regarding the people of Montpelier. Some suggestions for expanding upon this are provided above and by WP:UKCITIES. Once these are considered I will look again at the article. I cannot imagine that this will take too long, so I will place the article on-hold and await a response. Meetthefeebles ( talk) 10:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated and beautifully written article.
In light of the additions made, I am awarding GA status – well done! Please consider reviewing an article under the Good Article criteria. Meetthefeebles ( talk) 11:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The Temple is described as having "Egyptian-style pilasters and paired engaged columns of "bizarre form" with unusual capitals", but these seem to clearly refer to one feature only (I certainly do not see two different features these could apply to in the image). Since an engaged column and a pilaster are (as far as I understand) fundamentally different (the first is an actual structural element, the second is strictly decorative), I think they should only be called pilasters, as they seem to me to be unlikely to be structurally needed, strongly protruding pilasters yes, but still pilasters. Circéus ( talk) 20:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Montpelier, Brighton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Montpelier, Brighton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)