This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on the references and am aiming to get it to
Featured Article status. Therefore, I would like to know what improvements I need to make to the article before I take it to
FAC. All comments will be appreciated, no matter how long or how short. I hope you enjoy Peer Reviewing
London!
Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The following pictures fall under this problem:
The rest will probably need careful scrutiny, also.
Ottava Rima (
talk)
19:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know I copy and pasted this from a recent review of london. I think he might be trying to say that you can't go around taking pictures of buildings without permission. Sounds stupid to me... 86.29.137.235 ( talk) 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Thanks for the invitation, but I am not an expert on copyright and will leave the discussion to those who are better versed than I. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no copyright expertise, so I spoke to a friend who does. He's supplied me with acopy of expert professional advice obtained by his employers. It's entitled "Photography of buildings – can owners of historic buildings exercise any control?". It refers to section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The section "expressly provides that it is not an infringement of copyright in a building to make a photograph of it. It is immaterial that the building is not visible from a public place or a public highway. Nor is it an infringement of any copyright in the building to distribute copies of the photograph to the public (for example in tourist brochures and advertising)."
The advice says that copyright subsists with the designer, but expires 70 years after death. The designer's copyright has not been tested in court. Folks at 137 ( talk) 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Beautiful images, overall fairly well written, but still needs some work. I tired to point out some examples below.
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Second look - these are examples, please check carefully that there are not other, similar problrms before FAC. These are also fairly nit-picky.
Overall seems pretty close to FAC ready, but I would be very picky before hand and clean all these up to avoid these kind of simple errors resulting in needless opposes or lots of work for you there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Should London be nominated for featured article status now? The Vandal Warrior ( talk) 20:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
How about A class article? With all the referencing gone into it now I'm sure it is...
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Started to read through, and I have quibbles with part of the opening section: "Since its settlement, London has been the centre of many important movements and phenomena throughout history, such as the English Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, and the Gothic Revival." With respect to the kids at Nettlesworth Primary School, I doubt that they rank as suitable authorities for the statement above. In particular, my (off the cuff) understanding is that the Industrial Revolution was based in mining, weaving and their transport needs. London is neither a mining nor a basic textile region - these were in Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and the English north and midlands. So is there any (authoritative) support for the notion that London was the "centre"? I'll continue to browse, but an initial impression is that the article needs some pruning and rephrasing to make it more accessible. But then I'm a grumpy old git. Folks at 137 ( talk) 19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Couple more bits for you:
Under Geography:
"London can be defined in a number of ways, although the situation was once more ambiguous and open to periodic legal debate" - was once more? It doesn't read well to me. - Done
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
19:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Climate:
"London has a temperate marine climate, like much of the British Isles, with regular but generally light precipitation throughout the year—unlike the rest of the UK and even the nearby coast" - how is the rest of the UK different - heavier precipitation, less regular? - Done (Removed)
The
Helpful
One
(Review) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Economy:
"media distribution industry is London's second most competitive sector." maybe mention that central banking is the most competitive, to save anyone (else!) trawling the sources to find out ;-) -
Done Added.
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Pictures:
The rainy Canary Wharf skyline is horrible - low quality image with visible artifacts- surely there's a better one out there? - Done Changed.
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
20:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Landmarks Section - two panoramas immediately after each other looks a little ugly to me, particularly as they aren't under a subheading - maybe put the city of london one under Architecture and Greenwich under Parks and Gardens? - Done.
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Parks and Gardens - "Often called the Green City" - really? Could do with a stronger ref for this, otherwise I'd tend to think of it as a PR phrase, in the same way as the Museum Mile
Same section - "the London Boroughs of Bexley and Bromley are noted for their open spaces " - are they? They have open and wood spaces but are they noted for them? - Done, I don't think that they are! Removed.
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Leisure and Entertainment - "Upper St..has more bars and restaurants than any other street in the UK."- needs a ref. - Done -- Referenced.
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
20:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Same section - not sure why we go on about how the local press reviews restaurants, and locals read it?? This happens everywhere surely! - Done Removed.
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
20:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sport - "London also has four rugby union teams in the Guinness Premiership" - except they don't play in London, so how are they "London clubs"? - Done, added: although only the Harlequins play in London (all the other three now play outside Greater London).
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
20:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hope that helps Paulbrock ( talk) 22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on the references and am aiming to get it to
Featured Article status. Therefore, I would like to know what improvements I need to make to the article before I take it to
FAC. All comments will be appreciated, no matter how long or how short. I hope you enjoy Peer Reviewing
London!
Thanks, The Helpful One (Review) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The following pictures fall under this problem:
The rest will probably need careful scrutiny, also.
Ottava Rima (
talk)
19:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know I copy and pasted this from a recent review of london. I think he might be trying to say that you can't go around taking pictures of buildings without permission. Sounds stupid to me... 86.29.137.235 ( talk) 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Thanks for the invitation, but I am not an expert on copyright and will leave the discussion to those who are better versed than I. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no copyright expertise, so I spoke to a friend who does. He's supplied me with acopy of expert professional advice obtained by his employers. It's entitled "Photography of buildings – can owners of historic buildings exercise any control?". It refers to section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The section "expressly provides that it is not an infringement of copyright in a building to make a photograph of it. It is immaterial that the building is not visible from a public place or a public highway. Nor is it an infringement of any copyright in the building to distribute copies of the photograph to the public (for example in tourist brochures and advertising)."
The advice says that copyright subsists with the designer, but expires 70 years after death. The designer's copyright has not been tested in court. Folks at 137 ( talk) 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Beautiful images, overall fairly well written, but still needs some work. I tired to point out some examples below.
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Second look - these are examples, please check carefully that there are not other, similar problrms before FAC. These are also fairly nit-picky.
Overall seems pretty close to FAC ready, but I would be very picky before hand and clean all these up to avoid these kind of simple errors resulting in needless opposes or lots of work for you there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Should London be nominated for featured article status now? The Vandal Warrior ( talk) 20:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
How about A class article? With all the referencing gone into it now I'm sure it is...
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Started to read through, and I have quibbles with part of the opening section: "Since its settlement, London has been the centre of many important movements and phenomena throughout history, such as the English Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, and the Gothic Revival." With respect to the kids at Nettlesworth Primary School, I doubt that they rank as suitable authorities for the statement above. In particular, my (off the cuff) understanding is that the Industrial Revolution was based in mining, weaving and their transport needs. London is neither a mining nor a basic textile region - these were in Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and the English north and midlands. So is there any (authoritative) support for the notion that London was the "centre"? I'll continue to browse, but an initial impression is that the article needs some pruning and rephrasing to make it more accessible. But then I'm a grumpy old git. Folks at 137 ( talk) 19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Couple more bits for you:
Under Geography:
"London can be defined in a number of ways, although the situation was once more ambiguous and open to periodic legal debate" - was once more? It doesn't read well to me. - Done
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
19:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Climate:
"London has a temperate marine climate, like much of the British Isles, with regular but generally light precipitation throughout the year—unlike the rest of the UK and even the nearby coast" - how is the rest of the UK different - heavier precipitation, less regular? - Done (Removed)
The
Helpful
One
(Review) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Economy:
"media distribution industry is London's second most competitive sector." maybe mention that central banking is the most competitive, to save anyone (else!) trawling the sources to find out ;-) -
Done Added.
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Pictures:
The rainy Canary Wharf skyline is horrible - low quality image with visible artifacts- surely there's a better one out there? - Done Changed.
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
20:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Landmarks Section - two panoramas immediately after each other looks a little ugly to me, particularly as they aren't under a subheading - maybe put the city of london one under Architecture and Greenwich under Parks and Gardens? - Done.
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Parks and Gardens - "Often called the Green City" - really? Could do with a stronger ref for this, otherwise I'd tend to think of it as a PR phrase, in the same way as the Museum Mile
Same section - "the London Boroughs of Bexley and Bromley are noted for their open spaces " - are they? They have open and wood spaces but are they noted for them? - Done, I don't think that they are! Removed.
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Leisure and Entertainment - "Upper St..has more bars and restaurants than any other street in the UK."- needs a ref. - Done -- Referenced.
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
20:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Same section - not sure why we go on about how the local press reviews restaurants, and locals read it?? This happens everywhere surely! - Done Removed.
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
20:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sport - "London also has four rugby union teams in the Guinness Premiership" - except they don't play in London, so how are they "London clubs"? - Done, added: although only the Harlequins play in London (all the other three now play outside Greater London).
The
Helpful
One
(Review)
20:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hope that helps Paulbrock ( talk) 22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)