This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Unsourced list moved from article. Needs sourcing, and putting into context. Much of these are probably better off being placed in the articles on the streets named. SilkTork✔Tea time23:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Horace Walpole (1717–1797) British 'Man of Letters', Politician & Novelist – No 11 Berkeley Square (He also lived at No 22 & No 5 Arlington Street, St James's)
Bernard Sunley British Philanthropist & Businessman – Lived at & formed charity at No 20 – Green Plaque
George Canning (1770–1827) British Prime Minister in 1827 – No 50 – Blue Plaque
Robert Clive, 1st Baron Clive of India (1725–1774) British Soldier & Statesman – No 50 – Blue Plaque
I have just modified 2 external links on Mayfair. 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, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed 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.
This article was nominated for good article status. The review began on {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTDAY}}, {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}. Below is an evaluation of the article, according to the six good article criteria.
1. Well written?:
Prose quality: In general, the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. There are a few comments below regarding capitalization, commas, and wording. Update: Looks good now. Y
Manual of Style compliance: It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Y
References layout: It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Y
Citations to reliable sources: The sources used are reliable sources. Have a question about encyclopedias and formatting the citations with retrieved dates and isbns, where applicable. Update: looks good, not really a criteria, thanks. Y
No original research: No evidence of original research. There's a comment regarding some paraphrasing. Update: This has been addressed. Y
3. Broad in coverage?:
Major aspects: It addresses the main aspects of the topic.Y
Focused: It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.Y
No edit wars, content disputes, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): The article is stable.Y
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?: {{subst:#if: |{{{images}}}| Pass }}
Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Yes. Y
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Yes. Y
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If you feel the final result of this review has been in error, you may request a reassessment. If the article failed to attain Good Article status after a full review, it may be easier to address any problems identified above, and simply renominate it.
Overall, the article is very well-written, informative, and interesting. I particularly enjoyed the historical and archaeological information. Images are used appropriately throughout the article and are supported by content. I have a couple of things to run by you below, but overall it looks to be a very good job.
Lead
"It is one of the most expensive districts in London and the world." and " London's largest concentration of five star hotels," should have a citation, per WP:CITELEAD.
"There has been speculation" is used twice in the first two sentences. Should one of them state - by archaeologists, historians, or name specific people or entities?
Should there be a link for "Civil War" for the non-English / non-UKers?
Yes, I think there should. I've also qualified with "17th century" (the source doesn't say that but I don't think it's original research to give the century the civil war happened in!) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific occupation (city planner, city architect, other) that can be attributed to Thomas Barlowe - just as point of reference since there is no article that I could find on him?
Is the comma needed in "The butcher Allen of Mayfair was based in Mount Street, and founded in 1830."? Same with the later, "The Handel House Museum is at No. 25 Brook Street in Mayfair, and opened in 2001." And, the later "The company's investment funds have been more successful than the FTSE All-Share Index, and the FTSE Small Cap Index." And, "In 2007, Cadbury Schweppes announced that it was moving to Uxbridge, London Borough of Hillingdon, to cut costs." — In other words, would this be a difference between English-English and American-English?
I'll address the other points when I'm next to my book sources, but the comma thing does appear to be a difference between UK and US English, as I recall it came up in Talk:Mersea Island/GA1 and Talk:Liverpool Street station/GA1 - however in those cases it's the other way round in as much as there have been complaints about not enough commas. In the first example, I could probably rewrite that as "The butcher Allen of Mayfair was founded in a shop on Mount Street in 1830" which side-steps the issue, the FTSE stuff I'd say the comma can probably come out, and for Cadbury I would leave the comma after "2007" and rewrite it to "In 2007, Cadbury Schewppes announced that it was moving to Uxbridge in order to cut costs", because whether or not Uxbridge is in a London borough or in the County of Middlesex can be contentious (seriously, ask Russell Grant about the Association of British Counties). How does that grab you? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be a couple of places where the content could be paraphrased a bit more, particularly the paragraph starting out "In 1725, Mayfair became part of the new parish..." See Earwig's detector feedback.
I generally wouldn't use an encyclopedia if I could find other sources, such as Encyclopædia Britannica. Do you, by chance, have another source for: 6. "Mayfair". Encyclopædia Britannica. Thoughts about The London Encyclopaedia?
I made some minor edits that you may want to look at in history to ensure you agree. I was going to remove some of the duplicate links as well, but thought I'd mention it here first.
Yup, I noticed, no problems with those. What other duplicate links are they? I fear without some sort of tool it'll be like looking for a needle in a haystack :-( Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's "Highlight duplicate links" - I'm not quickly finding it in preferences. Do you see it on your left hand menu under "Tools". I don't remember if I had to do something to get it or not. I'll do it real quick.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Richie333 - Ok, I removed the duplicate links and I think we're good to go now - unless you have any questions about my changes to the capitalization based upon your responses or removal of duplicate links.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am, too. By the way, info for the tool for "Highlight duplicate links" is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Tools. The Roman road map does look strange - it wants me to check it against a map of archaeological sites to see if there's any reason for that.
Cool, thanks for a good and informative review, I had to go back and check a few facts, which is always worthwhile. I have spent the odd afternoon randomly pottering around Mayfair after a walk in Hyde Park wondering how on earth anyone can afford to live there .... but then again, I think Belgravia is even more bonkers in terms of house prices these days. BTW the GA bot seems to have choked on this review and keeps awarding you review points every time somebody else puts a review on the queue - hopefully a close will make it sort itself out. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I am not sure how informative it was - you did such a great job that I just found minor items. It was the easiest review I've done. Funny about the counter.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've had my eye on improving this article for nearly two years (I think there's a note on the talk page to that effect), it's just taken the past week for me to sit down, switch out everything else and just knuckle down and get on with the job. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Ritchie333, the reason that LegoBot was confused was that CaroleHenson used a non-standard status, "pending", in the GA nominee template after she posted her review. Either the status should be left "onreview", or switched to "onhold" if the review is waiting for the nominator to deal with the the requests or suggestions made by the reviewer. (The only other valid value is "2ndopinion"; the field is blank prior to the review being opened.) No harm done, if CaroleHenson doesn't mind the inflated review count, since you dealt with the issues so quickly. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Mayfair. 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.
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.
There was a reason the article didn't have an infobox, but I can't remember what. I think it was due to it sandwiching images further down and making a mess. Anyway, I think it should have:
A map
Not a grid reference (the area covers multiple entries and hence makes no sense)
A map at infobox size is wholly useless. Really a traditional area like this, which doesn't align with any current political/postal etc divisions is too complicated for an infobox to handle. Obviously the key fact about Mayfair is that only very rich people live there, & no box that doesn't get that up front is worth having. Perhaps this was the "reason the article didn't have an infobox"? Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coming late to the punch up- Mayfair is similar to Bloomsbury which has a very pretty infobox. The map however leaves something to be desired but is consistent with similar articles. I have left myself a few notes on wikicartography in my user-page that may be useful or entertaining- as the UK place infobox may not have caught up with infobox school.
That's a nice map, but much too wide for an infobox, and the rest of the information isn't worth giving such prominence to (which goes for Bloomsbury too). At least let's not have a multiple image - yuk! Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the infobox in Covent Garden – a somewhat imprecise district which is an FA. For coordinates, I would focus on the site of the original May fair, which was in the Great Brookfield which is now Curzon Street. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's weird to come to an article on a location like this and not have a map and other summary info in an infobox. The above-mentioned Covent Garden is a good example of what readers are apt to expect. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NoNeutral per previous threads, simply because nobody could actually come to a consensus what we should put in it. However, if somebody wants to draft an infobox here that looks good and informative, and fits in with the page layout, I'll have a think about it. Indeed, the question of what should go in an infobox is probably a more relevant one than simply having one or not. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Infoboxes are extremely useful for finding quick information in a single glance. The contents of the infobox can be argued later, but the existence of an infobox should not be controversial. Incidentally, I see nothing objectional about the suggested infobox below. Fieari (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. They are useful for structured information. Contentious entries can just be omitted. I like the infobox below. SWinxy (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not this one below, which is completely useless. Yes, it's in London, that's London, England, and ceremonially it's in London, which is in the UK. Nothing about the most glaringly obvious thing about Mayfair, which any Monopoly player can tell you. Johnbod (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a mockup of an infobox for the article. Comments welcome. I notice that the "Police", "Fire" and "Ambulance" fields are automatically populated, which is actually one of my objections - how is that relevant to the article. But that's a discussion for the template itself. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. I don't have an objection to police et al, but equally they aren't the most important so I'm happy with them either in or out. One of the district articles I looked at (but I can't remember which one) had a map showing the location in the UK rather than the borough or Greater London, which I think is less useful than the presentation here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Y
