Talk:Saskatchewan Conservation House

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 02:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Saskatchewan Conservation House, built in 1977 to withstand Canadian winter temperatures, did not use a furnace? Source: https://passivehouseplus.co.uk/blogs/the-saskatchewan-house-1977 (date, temperature) https://thetyee.ca/News/2011/01/25/Passivhaus/ (no furnace)
  • ALT1: ... that the Saskatchewan Conservation House, built in 1977 to withstand Canadian winter temperatures, heavily influenced the design of the German Passivhaus? Source: https://passivehouseplus.co.uk/blogs/the-saskatchewan-house-1977 (date, temperature) https://thetyee.ca/News/2011/01/25/Passivhaus/ (Passivhaus)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Figueredo
  • Comment: I have not linked to Passivhaus because that article needs cleanup.

Created by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk). Self-nominated at 15:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Saskatchewan Conservation House; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Article move to mainspace date versus filing date okay. Article length okay. Sourcing and neutrality good. No evident signs of copyvio. QPQ done. Hook facts verified. I think ALT0 is much the better given the surprise factor, so whether to link or not within ALT1 is moot in my view.

Some other things: The article really needs a photograph of the house itself, but alas I don't see one this is available for use. (SCH) is an early exemplar this acroynm is only used once in article – if not in common use, it should be eliminated, one less piece of mental clutter. not require a furnace[4], and similar elsewhere, note goes after the comma not before. in Regina, Saskatchewan which neighborhood of Regina, in what kind of setting? Is there some Regina article that can mention and link to this one? its ventilation system ... Saskatchewan Conservation House achieved measures of 0.8 ach@50pa in the age of Covid, is this a good thing or a bad thing? is the air stale and motionless all the time? estimated as $30[9]-$40 for a year.[10] the note placement is awkward, would suggest both together at the end of the phrase. heat recovery systems can this be linked to heat recovery ventilation? the energy crisis of the 1970s this can be linked to 1970s energy crisis. For $65,000.00 and similar, there is no usefulness in included the cents amount. insulated to about R100 should this be r-100? That's how other insulation levels are formatted. – Harold Orr, 2013[5][10] no need to link Harold Orr again, it's kind of visually distracting, to me at least. Category:Buildings and structures in Canada this can be narrowed to Category:Buildings and structures in Regina, Saskatchewan. And one that can be added is Category:Houses completed in 1977.

Overall, good job, interesting article, I liked reading it. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Wasted Time R: Thanks for the helpful suggestions. I've made the changes you suggest. I haven't been able to find an out-of-copyright image, but I've put a request on the article's talk page. Glad you enjoyed the article! Happy holidays, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks okay to me now. Best wishes for the new year ... Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)