Talk:Octavia Hill/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DrKiernan (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article meets virtually all the criteria, but I'm concerned that some of the text is a near copy of non-public domain sources.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I think you need to re-arrange the sequence in the Early life section as it is clearer to be told the story of her parents' marriage before we hear of her birth.

Done

I've made some edits to the first bit myself, hope they're OK.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are three points for clarification: (1) Was the Working Men's College on Great Ormond Street or, as Darley says, Red Lion Square? (2) As implied by the footnote, was Gladstone's veto so certain? Was he playing both ways or taking a middle path, perhaps moderating between her supporter Dilke and her opposer Harcourt? (3) The Legacy section says she originated the ACF, but the Biography section says Hill just founded the first independent detachment of it.

(1) Both. Checked with The Times archive. Probably less confusing to say simply "Bloomsbury" as the two sites were cheek by jowl. I've redrawn accordingly. (2) I cannot now remember in which source I found this, and have deleted it, as it is peripheral. (3) I'm not sure that there is a difference. She certainly seems to have founded the ACF, according to all the sources, and (happily, though not citably) the WP article concurs. We could lose the reference to "independent detachment" if you think that will avoid confusion. Tim riley (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've put Gladstone back in the footnote because there's a quote in Darley, IIRC, that he supported her on principle but not the person. On 3, leave it: if both are correct, there's no discrepancy.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is thorough, and covers major points, but there are areas for expansion, if you wanted to take the article above GA, which I shall detail below.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Although you've acknowledged sources, it is not really appropriate to directly copy paragraphs. For example, compare "...he became in many respects a surrogate father to her children. Southwood Smith was a noted health reformer, campaigning on issues from child labour in the mines to the housing conditions of the urban poor. The influence of her mother's interest in progressive educational ideas, particularly those of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, and her grandfather's daily experience in his work at the London Hospital in the East End gave an early impetus to Octavia Hill's urge to help the poorest in early Victorian London" with the direct text from the ODNB: "...he became in many respects a surrogate father to her children. Dr Southwood Smith was a noted health reformer, campaigning on issues from child labour in the mines to the housing conditions of the urban poor. The influence of her mother's interest in progressive educational ideas, particularly those of Pestalozzi, and her grandfather's daily experience in his work at the London Hospital in the East End gave an early impetus to Octavia Hill's urge to help the very poorest strata of society in early Victorian London". This isn't the only instance. DrKiernan (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Redrawn. Please see if you think the prose sufficiently different now. Tim riley (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor prose issues:

• In the lead, "alleviating the poverty of the working classes" could be simplified to "alleviating poverty" (It is explained later that her help was restricted to workers)

I put this in to contrast with the poverty of her own early years, but have redrawn as suggested. Tim riley (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Just because I dislike "at that time", how about "in Finchley, now a north London suburb, but at that time a village." to "in the village of Finchley, now a north London suburb."?

Redrawn Tim riley (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• "of the classes for women's classes" should be "for the women's classes"

It should. (How on earth did that survive Peer Review!) Tim riley (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Ragged school" or "Ragged School"?

Done. Tim riley (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• "continental Europe and the U.S." would read better as "United States or "U.S. and continental Europe", because otherwise the final abbreviation dot in U.S. doubles as a full stop, which I find unpleasing to the eye.

U.S. spelled out. Tim riley (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Areas for further expansion:

• Did she meet Andersen and Dickens? That might be worth mentioning.
• When Octavia was accepted at the guild, wasn't her mother employed there as a manager?
• It might with worth mentioning, in connection with Maurice, that the Hills were dissenters but Octavia was converted to Anglicanism in 1857.
• Is there any link to Christian socialism?
• I think it might be useful to mention a failure as well as successes, such as the failed campaign to save Swiss Cottage Fields from development.
• The episode with Edward Bond deserves inclusion in the text rather than the notes.
• The final sentence in the biography section looks rather stark on its own. Perhaps add to it by saying she was buried at Crockham Hill or mention the memorial service at Southwark.
• The Women's University Settlement is mentioned in the Legacy section. What was Hill's involvement with this?

All excellent points, and I'll address them, as you suggest, if I take this article further. I have no present ambition to take it to FAC. As you can see from the references, practically all my research has been done online, and however good the ODNB and learned journals, I reckon a Featured Article needs research in full-length published studies of the subject, and have always acted on that precept in articles I have successfully taken to FAC. Tim riley (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Some very good points here, which need to be addressed carefully. I'll do so over the next day or so. In addition to the one instance you mention where the prose is too close to the original, it would be a great help if you could point out any others where you feel the same applies. It is so long since I worked on the article that I can't recall very accurately which sentences went in when. Tim riley (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what? I can't spot any others, now. So, I've struck that; it must just be the chunk at the beginning. DrKiernan (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

All points, above, now addressed, I think (and hope!). Back to you for consideration, DrK. Tim riley (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the changes. DrKiernan (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)