Talk:Chester Rows

Chester Rows was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 11, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
November 14, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 21, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that one theory suggests that the unique Chester Rows (pictured) were constructed in the medieval era on top of debris from the ruins of Roman buildings?

Current status: Delisted good article

Cheshire Mid‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chester Rows/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

A well-constructed, well-referenced and well-illustrated article. Prose, references and illustrations appear to be at GA-level.

Medieval period - I don't have access to a copy of Ward, does ref 8 cover the whole of this paragraph, I presume it does? DonePyrotec (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origins -

The second para is well referenced. However, it was not clear to me what the significance of the sentence: "The Roman fortress at Chester was unusually large being 60 acres (240,000 m2) in size, while most legionary fortresses were about 50 acres (200,000 m2).[12]" was. Then, having checked the references, ref 3 explains that: "Chester was founded as the legionary fortress of Deva, and the lay-out and subsequent development of the city was heavily influenced by the grid pattern of the original Roman street plan." I would suggest that this point needs to be clarified for readers, such as myself, who are not familiar with Chester.

Scope -

The article describes the Rows, provides information on their (possible) creation, subsequent development, and use today. It ends on: "Chester Rows are a major tourist attraction in the city because of their unique nature, their attractive appearance, and the covered shopping experience they provide". Which is good, but I need to consider whether the scope of the article is adequate.

There is no information provided on statutary protection, listed building status, ancient building status, etc.

The Bridge Street photograph appears to show "traffic calming measures", whilst the Three Old Arches does not - there is a taxi rank outside. I accept that this is an article about buildings and walkways, but as the potential tourist (I've never been to Chester) the article fails to provide any information about what is happening at street level. Well, other than there are stone undercrofts and shops, some slightly below street level.

Pyrotec (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Medieval period. The ref does include the whole paragraph.
Origins. I should like to be able to answer the question "Why are there rows in Chester and nowhere else?" but as yet have been unable to do so. I think I was playing with the argument that a possible reason was that the fortress was the largest Roman fortress in Britain, and it therefore had more debris ...; but I cannot find that argument elsewhere and so could not use it explicitly. So the sentence about the size of the fortress serves no purpose and will be deleted.

I came across ref 3 rather late in the writing process and probably need to use more of it to clarify the paragraph; this will be rewritten.

Scope. I found this the most difficult subject to deal with, mainly because I could not find reliable good-enough sources. I could tell you all about the present state - shops, offices, restaurants, etc - but that would be from my own knowledge, which is not acceptable. A search of Pastscape using "row Chester" here gets 21 hits for National Monuments, 14 of which are buildings in Chester incorporating rows; I presume I could use this. A search on Images of England using "row/Chester/Cheshire" gives 170 hits. I did a quick survey of these; 94 of the buildings containing rows are listed buildings, 9 at Grade I, 20 at Grade II* and 65 at Grade II. But this is really OR and I feel I cannot use it; and I have not found a source saying something like "a very high proportion of the buildings containing rows are listed (all of them?) and 9 are Grade I". Not sure what to do about this.

But I have found a source about the pedestrianisation here which I can use.

I don't think it's genuinely original research if all you're doing is counting. If you added in some analysis of the stats that would count as OR, but I don't think working out a couple of numbers and presenting them to the reader counts. It might be problematic to source though as I don't think it's possible to link to a search (doesn't the link expire?) Nev1 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will alert you when I have done what I can of the above. Do you have any suggestions on how to use the Pastscape and Images of Britain evidence? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The English Heritage websites Images of England and Pastscape are both reliable sources. Another possibility is the Victoria County History; some of the Cheshire ones are here: [1]. Sorry, I don't have any Cheshire-related books on my shelves, so I can't help with 'books to hand'.Pyrotec (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added material to extend the scope which I hope is now adequate. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I think that you have (more than) covered the points that I made above. I'm just going to read through the article from Description to the end and then the WP:lead just to statisfy myself that it is GA-complaint. Pyrotec (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chester Rows. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100123010529/http://oliverandco.co.uk:80/index.html to http://www.oliverandco.co.uk/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chester Rows. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs.
The "Today" section suffers from MOS:CURRENCY and should be relabeled.
The "Today" section has lots of short paragraphs that make the prose feel like a list of events. This should be restructured so that the information is organised into longer paragraphs.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Chester Rows

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 14:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. The title of the "Today" section suffers from MOS:CURRENCY, and the prose has lots of short paragraphs that make the prose feel like a list of events. This should be restructured so that the information is organised into longer paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.