Talk:Round Hill, Brighton

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Round Hill, Brighton article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Round Hill, 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 14, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 11, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that 101 Roundhill Crescent (pictured in foreground), in Brighton's Round Hill suburb, housed England's first hospital for the treatment of mental illness?

Brighton Mid‑importance

	East Sussex portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project pageBrightonWikipedia:WikiProject BrightonTemplate:WikiProject BrightonBrighton articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Round Hill, Brighton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 01:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will read this over the next few days and then start to leave comments. SilkTork *^YES! 01:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
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:

Comments

I'll place here any comments or observations as I am reading. These observations may sometimes be general, and not strictly related to GA criteria. GA specific comments will be summarised later. SilkTork *^YES! 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The roads were both turnpiked in 1770, and The Level—originally common land—was enclosed and reserved for public recreation in 1822." Does it mean that all three roads previously mentioned were turnpiked and something else happened, and in addition The Level was enclosed; or that all the roads were turnpiked and The Level was later enclosed; or that two of the roads were turnpiked? If it means that two of the roads were turnpiked, does it relate to the two outer roads? If so, it could be restructured so that mention of Ditchling Road comes later, and the sentence changed to "Both roads were turnpiked..." Regarding the use of the term "turnpiked" - though linked to toll road, the use of the term might be unfamiliar to some, while toll road itself would be understood, and so it might be more accessible to simply use the term toll road, as in "Both routes were made into toll roads in 1770...." SilkTork *^YES! 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

→I have reworded this (I think I introduced ambiguity by mentioning Ditchling Road before the turnpike sentence). I reworded the turnpike clause to clarify but also keeping the term "turnpike", which is the more appropriate term for a toll road of that era. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well researched and well presented article. I am though concerned at the amount of detail. This is almost as big as the articles on Greater Manchester and London, and twice as big as Brighton, articles covering larger areas. There is too much detail here for a general encyclopaedia, and some detail is unimportant or irrelevant. The background material on schools is not needed, and that "Board schools were created as a result of the Act, but none lay within the boundaries of the suburb" is not relevant. The paragraph on the four large detached villas could be trimmed - the names for example are a detail too far. It can be difficult to trim an article after working on it for a while, so if help is needed in trimming it back, please let me know and I'll take a look. SilkTork *^YES! 18:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

→I will work on trimming in the next few hours. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quality and range of images is very good. Initially I thought there may be too many images, but each is different, and adds value to the article, showing the range of buildings in the area. The image of the Jewish Cemetery chapel has an unfortunate shadow, and some of the others could perhaps be cropped closer to their subject so we get less road and cars in the foreground, but that is for ongoing development, and doesn't impact on this GA review at all. The quality and choice of the images is, on the whole, to be commended. SilkTork *^YES! 18:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

→Thanks! The Jewish chapel pic was taken on a very sunny day (obviously!) in midsummer—the shadow is a large tree—but I returned last month on a cloudy day and got some more pics, which (from memory) are clearer. I will try to upload one at some point. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source says that the first houses were built in 1865 rather than 1838. I assume this is because the source is talking about the Conservation area, rather than the Round Hill area as a whole. SilkTork *^YES! 19:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

→Yes, the PDF is just referring to houses in the Conservation Area, consisting of Roundhill Crescent and its immediate environs. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA points

This is an admirable article. Well researched and well presented, with clear supporting images. The content matches the sources I have checked out. There are points for future development regarding some of the images; apart from that, the article almost completely meets GA criteria. I have tidied up minor issues were I could as I read through the article. There is a little clarity regarding the statement about the tolls roads, but that is minor. The main, and really only, stumbling block is the amount of detail. GA Criteria 3 (b) says: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". So, two points, one minor, and one main:

Clarify the toll road sentence, mentioned above in Comments.
Trim the excessive detail.

I am prepared to help out on the trimming, but will be unable to do that until after March 3rd. SilkTork *^YES! 19:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

Review placed on hold until March 3rd to allow the work above to be done. I am going to France from 25th Feb to March 2nd, but if the work is done before 25th, please give me a ping. Any questions, please give me a ping. SilkTork *^YES! 19:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

→Thanks for your review, which has been very helpful: not just for this article, but for my planned future expansions of other Brighton and Hove suburb articles. I hope to finish "trimming" by this evening (24th). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your articles are excellent. I look forward to seeing more of them. SilkTork *^YES! 14:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay in getting back to you. I've just looked at the article and noted that you have cut stuff back - however, there is still a bit too much detail - I am prepared to go through myself and trim back, but that may need to wait for a couple of days. I started, but noted there was a bit too much work for me at the moment. Examples of too much detail are when explanation for easily understood terms (such as conservation area) are given, and when we are told how many trains stop per hour at the train station, or sentences such as "A shop next to the station became a coal office owned by the Co-operative Wholesale Society, and coal would be unloaded down chutes to be collected by lorries and transported around Brighton" - which would be more fitting for a local pamphlet rather than a general encyclopaedia. If buildings have their own articles, such as St Martin's Church or Lewes Road railway station, then a brief summary of the important points are all that is needed, and the detailed content merged with the standalone article per WP:Summary style. This is a GA requirement, however interpretation is open to debate, and if unsure how to proceed we can discuss it further.

The History section is long and to aid readability sub-headings could be used per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(layout)#Body_sections, or some of the content reduced in some manner - either by distributing elsewhere in the article or by creating a sub-article. This, again, is a GA requirement under criteria 1(b) "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for ... layout..." I noticed that there was detail on the Jewish cemetery that could be moved into a dedicated section on the cemetery, leaving just the note in History on when it was built. As always, suggestions are open for discussion.

I'll put this on hold for another seven days. Let me know if you'd like to talk about the trimming / organising or would like me to help. SilkTork *^YES! 14:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

→Thanks for your further help. I have been away over the weekend, but will start working on this tonight. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Let me know when you want me to look again. SilkTork *^YES! 19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're getting there. My concern now is that with some of the text removed, the images are cluttering the layout. I feel your images enrich the article and would be hesitant to ask you to remove them. Galleries are, on the whole, not encouraged; however, this appears to be an example of where a gallery is the most appropriate solution. How do you feel about moving some of the images to a gallery at the bottom of the article? SilkTork *^YES! 15:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like a reasonable suggestion. I will put together a suggested layout when I get home this evening. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at moving images around and putting some in a gallery. (Diff.) I will now be essentially offline until Saturday night, as I am travelling to Manchester at the weekend, but I will try to check here on Thursday night if I can. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two sections still have images squeezing text, which is frowned upon: MOS:IMAGES. Some captions are also rather long - see if you can incorporate some of the text in the main body. See WP:CAPTION. SilkTork *^YES! 12:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any images affecting the text, possibly because of my screen resolution (?), but I have removed one image which may have been problematic, and cut down several captions. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the remaining image. Passed. Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 10:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]