Wikipedia:Peer review/Queen's Hall/archive1

Queen's Hall[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having overhauled this article I think it might now be a possible candidate for GA, and would be most grateful for any comments here on balance, prose and referencing and indeed anything else. Tim riley (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I can't do a full review at the moment, but here are a few thoughts:

In my view the article is potentially well above GA standard and you should aim higher
In the lead I would combine the first and second paragraphs
Also in the lead, I'd look again at the sentence beginning "These two ensembles..." which, as presently constructed, has rather too many commas.
Background: Most of this section is concerned with the building of the hall and particularly its decorative features. I don't think this qualifies as "Background". The background to the creation of the hall is confined to the first two paragraphs; it may be possible to expand these. The remainder should be in a section entitled "Construction" or some such.
Early years: There is a link available to Band of the Coldstream Guards
You can also link smoking concert
Promenade concerts: I find this wording unsettling: "Prices were up to five times lower than those customarily charged..." I think it's the dying fall in "up to five times lower...". How about "Prices were as little as a fifth of those customarily charged"?
Other presentations: "On 14 January 1896, the first public film show was presented..." Please amplify. First public film show anywhere? Or just in Britain?
Early 20th C: A private bugbear - journals don't write themselves (The Musical Times wrote...) This or similar occurs several times
First world war etc: Link Zeppelin
Same section: in view of your global readership, you need to explain "the newly-established BBC" rather than forcing such readers to use the link.
Second World War: Graphically done, but I found the leap from the smouldering ruins and burnt-up instruments of May 1941 to the different world of 1954 a little abrupt. I think there needs to be a short linking paragraph between the present second and third paragraph.

I know this isn't a complete review, but I hope you'll find these few points helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - many thanks. I'll work through these points over the next few days. Tim riley (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All above suggestions acted upon. I am most grateful (and also for the suggestion of going for FA, on which I'll ponder). Tim riley (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]