Template:Did you know nominations/Swiss Cottage Library
- 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 Schwede66 talk 08:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Swiss Cottage Library
Swiss Cottage Library in London
- ... that disputes in the acclaimed refurbishment of Swiss Cottage Library (pictured) prompted the library's operators to sue its developers? Source: McAslan sued over library, Building Design
- ALT1:
... that despite being called one of Camden's "ugliest" buildings, Swiss Cottage Library's (pictured) demolition was controversially prevented by English Heritage?Source: "Camden eyesore set to gain list status". Ham & High, full quote: "calling the pair the 'ugliest buildings in the borough'"- ALT1a:
... that despite being called one of Camden's "ugliest" buildings, the demolition of Swiss Cottage Library (pictured) was controversially prevented by English Heritage?
- ALT1a:
- ALT2:
... that Swiss Cottage Library (pictured) was acclaimed by Elizabeth II on opening as "really wonderful"?Source: "The Queen's Comment: It's Wonderful: Royal opening of new baths and library". Hampstead & Highgate Express. - ALT3:
... that Swiss Cottage Library's (pictured) architect described its future as "in the lap of the Gods" following reorganisations in local government?Source: "The Queen's Comment: It's Wonderful: Royal opening of new baths and library". Hampstead & Highgate Express- ALT3a:
... that the architect of Swiss Cottage Library (pictured) described its future as "in the lap of the Gods" following reorganisations in local government?
- ALT3a:
- Reviewed:
- Comment: Still working on hooks, I'd be grateful for any suggestions.
- ALT1:
Improved to Good Article status by Isochrone (talk). Self-nominated at 15:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Swiss Cottage Library; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Isochrone (talk · contribs), I will start a review shortly, four hooks is plenty, unless you find something better than the previous ones. TSventon (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- 1.
"British government had prioritised housing and education, resulting in archaic building regulations remaining unamended" sounds odd, do you have a quote or scan of the source? - 2.
"English Heritage's decision ... was controversial both locally and nationally" is not supported by Standard reference, as far as I can see. - 3.
"fins" made from Portland stone" - should mention they are concrete. - 4.
I don't like "Swiss Cottage Library's (pictured)", could you provide Alt1a and Alt3a using "of Swiss Cottage Library (pictured)" then the promoter can choose what they prefer.TSventon (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- TSventon, thanks:
- the first one is mainly from the historical background section of the online Historic England PDF, and the latter is from an offline source I can send
- You're right, this is a bit of synth I wrote a while back and didn't notice, I've amended it to better reflect the sources
- I'm confused what you mean here... is it incorrect? Looking at the relevant source it mentions portland stone?
- I've tried doing that
- As for the other sources, unfortunately the Ham & High is the only thing I wasn't thing I wasn't allowed to take photos of. I can send you my page by page notes, if that helps? If you really, really need it I might be able to go to the archives but I cannot guarantee how long that will take. I'll send the material I have scans of for now. – Isochrone (T) 11:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Isochrone, thank you for your responses, I will strike bullets as they are dealt with.
- "fins" made from Portland stone" suggests that the fins are made from stone rather than concrete, but according to the English Heritage listing the fins are made from "Portland stone aggregate", which I understand is concrete. I did not change this myself as I can't access the offline source.
- I want to make reasonable steps to check sources before assuming good faith, but don't think it's necessary to make a special journey to the library. I have received an email notification and will check my email shortly. TSventon (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes apologies, the linked source also mentioned aggregate and I was bit confused what it meant: from what I understand it could be a mix of any two materials, so I might just add aggregate instead of concrete, as I can't find a source specifically mentioning that. – Isochrone (T) 12:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- "Portland stone aggregate" is fine, Black 2017 mentions both fins "in Portland stone aggregate" and "concrete fins" on p 176. I don't think you sent me Black 2014, Black 2017 doesn't mention building regulations. By the way
- 5.
Is Swiss Cottage still the main library in Camden? I don't think that is cited. I am surprised that central library was an issue, the Cambridge Dictionary explains it as a library which is central.TSventon (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- TSventon so I've had a look at other sources and it seems its title as "Central Library" was amended in 2014, though it remains the administrative headquarter and the library with the largest capacity (the other main library is Holborn Library). I think I'll err on the side of caution and remove the primary/central bit: I agree I thought it made sense, but perhaps some readers don't understand it, as in the case with the GA reviewer. – Isochrone (T) 21:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Isochrone, I think Hampstead Central Library and Swiss Cottage Central Library should stay as names, you could remove central/ primary/ main as a description. I don't think it is important enough to reopen the discussion with the GA reviewer. TSventon (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- TSventon so I've had a look at other sources and it seems its title as "Central Library" was amended in 2014, though it remains the administrative headquarter and the library with the largest capacity (the other main library is Holborn Library). I think I'll err on the side of caution and remove the primary/central bit: I agree I thought it made sense, but perhaps some readers don't understand it, as in the case with the GA reviewer. – Isochrone (T) 21:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Sent – Isochrone (T) 20:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Isochrone I was impressed by the photos , which are suitably licensed and can assume good faith on offline references. On reflection I prefer ALT0 as it is sourced online. Could you change widely acclaimed to acclaimed, per the source. ALT2 is not surprising as the Queen was probably expected to say nice things about buildings she opened and ALT 1 and ALT3 have offline sources. Second nomination, so QPQ not needed. TSventon (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- TSventon, I was leaning towards alt0 as well and I'm very thankful for your thorough review. I appreciate your words about my photos, I was quite happy with how they turned out :) Thanks once again. – Isochrone (T) 09:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Isochrone review follows. I wouldn't wikilink operators/developers, a promoter might want to add in North London, but I will leave it for now.
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- Other problems:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
QPQ: 
- n/a
Overall: 
See comments at 02:06, 4 September 2023. TSventon (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)