Talk:Cleveland Pools

Logo

Does anyone know just how long this logo has been in use for? Is it possibly {{PD-old}} or similar? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This logo wasn't on the source site when I last looked at it a year or two ago - therefore I would presume it has recently been drawn & therefore can't be PD-old. Why not contact the webmaster of the site & if you think it would be really useful ask them to release it under OTRS or similar.— Rod ^talk 16:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Old photos

Also, does anyone have any information about the origins of this photo (captioned "The Cottage and cubicles in 1897")? It'd be handy to be able to judge if/when the copyright expired/expires on this. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As it is captioned as 1897 it is likely to qualify under PD-old or similar. If you go to the source file you can download & then zoom to examine the writing in the bottom right (? Hotel * Westgate) It may then be able to trace the hotel which presumably distributed it & therefore get an exact date. You may also be able to zoom to see the detail of the posters displayed - although when I tried this the pixelation was too bad to read. Alternatively (again) why not just contact the Cleveland Pools web site & ask where they got it from?— Rod ^talk 16:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

To be added..

• Listed building has lots more information that can be used.
• A history of closure and re-opening plans
• Plans of redevelopment

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Icebob99 (talk · contribs) 23:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. I'm aware that this article had a review that was started but never finished. I'll go through the GA criteria one by one and then give a few suggestions, just for fun, that won't affect GA status. Icebob99 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This article passes the immediate failure criteria. No copyvios, no cleanup tags or banners, and no edit warring.

Going on to the full review: Prose is clear and concise, with the meaning of each sentence apparent. Grammar is good, I caught a small typo that I fixed, so the article passes (1a). Lead meets MoS requirements, layout checks out, no peacock words or other words to watch. No fiction or list incorporation to worry about, so (1b) is met. List of references present, so it meets (2a). All sources look reliable with the stats cited inline, no BLP or controversial material, meets (2b). To be continued. Icebob99 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Everything's cited, no original research found, meets (2c). No copyvios as mentioned above, so the article meets (2d). The article covers everything I found in a Google search, and it stays nice and focused on everything about Cleveland Pools, so it meets both (3a) and (3b). 7.5kB readable prose has enough content to satisfy the reader. Neutrality looks good, thus (4) is met. Stability as mentioned above is good, so (5) is met. Images captions make sense, and the images themselves are licensed appropriately, so the article meets (6).

A few suggestions just for fun (completely optional):

• First sentence, perhaps change Cleveland Pools in Hampton Row to Cleveland Pools, located in Hampton Row
• End of first sentence, perhaps remove commas around "to designs by John Pinch the elder". Commas are very personal things, but I found it a little confusing at first. I'd also change the preposition "to" to "for".
• The sentence in the second paragraph of the lead reading "it was closed in 1984" should read "the pool was closed in 1984" since the last singular pronoun was "the local corporation".
• Perhaps add a comma after "in 2005" and before "which is expected to reopen in 2018", per comma use as I learned it. Again, commas are punctilious things.
• Perhaps merge the first and second sentences in the third paragraph of the lead.
• First sentence of history section: same as bullet 2.
• In the fourth paragraph of the history section, perhaps expand on why the pool was threatened with demolition.
• What do II and II* mean? You may want to include some explanation on that.

Anyhow, those are enough suggestions, the article obviously passes, congratulations to the nominator! Icebob99 (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cleveland Pools. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-28736702
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328154505/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/oliver.merrington/lidos/lidos6.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/oliver.merrington/lidos/lidos6.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Revisions re 2014 HLF grant

I have updated the 2nd paragraph under 'Restoration'. The text relating to the 2014 HLF grant was technically inaccurate as it was dependent on a successful submission to the HLF, which everyone expected it to be, but it was not successful (or only in part). The new wording succinctly explains the current situation without going into a load of confusing detail which would add nothing to the reader's knowledge. I hope that's OK. Franktompson (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC) & add: