Talk:Denmark Street

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject UK Roads (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Roads, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK roads 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject London (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject London Transport (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London's transport system 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Rock music (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

QR code[edit]

I added a photo of the newest blue plaque. This has a QR code but they put the plaque so high up that it's not easy to resolve. I'll have another go but, in case I forget, I'm noting this here as the corresponding URL would be good as an external link. We need to move fast as the developers are busy. The premises beneath the plaque were being gutted while I was taking the photo... Andrew (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

GA stuff[edit]

Dr. Blofeld asked over on his talk what's left to do to get this to GA status.

I don't think there's too much, and I find that a day at DYK tends to get at least one good copyedit that irons out the niggles. Blofeld says there needs to be more Forbidden Planet in the body, and I agree with that. Why did they chose Denmark Street, or was it just the best premises available in the West End? Andrew can hopefully sort that out as he's been a fan of the shop for years. I'd like to know a bit more about these illegal nightclubs, which we only have from a single book source documenting the 1980 fire. The Giaconda needs more information in the body, there are two good cites, so there's definitely information to mine.

Anything else? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't know what more we need for GA but there's plenty more good stuff out there. It's a shame we went with a rather tame DYK hook as we might have had DYKs like "...serial killer Dennis Nilsen used the cooking pot in which he'd boiled his victim's heads for a Xmas party at number 1, Denmark Street!". I'm going to put some of this info into the article in tabular form as it seems interesting to know what happened at the particular street numbers. People don't like listification though so we'll perhaps have to keep the table on the talk page and use prose in the article. The real goal should be FA as we might then get back on the front page again. Still, if we fill the article with good factoids, this will help feed journalists covering the campaign. Andrew (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Andrew, much better than my Nilsen hook three months ago, "DYK that serial killer Dennis Nilsen attempted to murder a student he met at The Salisbury, London, and went on to murder another 14 young men?", which had 1,112 hits. Edwardx (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This DYK got 1722 hits but it did have top billing with a picture. Anyway, we should look forward to another go when we have FA status. It's got to be better than today's FA... Andrew (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well once the listed building section is sourced (shouldn't be hard), I reckon we're in a position to take this to GA, and as several people have already said elsewhere that it's GA-ready now, it ought not to take too long to pass. Then we can get down to some serious spit and polish and take it to FAC. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I would avoid lists if you possibly can, as WP:EMBED is one of the few areas of the MOS that is part of the GA criteria. I chose a simple and uncontroversial hook because it would be accepted, is something the layman reader may not have known and would not have been challenged at a review. Also, I'm really concerned that Nilsen has not much to do with Denmark Street, whose notability is based around its heritage and music shops. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Roque's map of 1741
  • I like the black humour of the catering industry / cooking pot link. I've added a table of listed buildings. As they are listed, a list seems appropriate, eh? The English Heritage reports have lots of detail about their interiors but, as they are quite similar, we should try to summarise this. It would be good to have a street plan which shows the position of each building but I've not seen anything like that yet. In one source, I saw a reference to a caricature by Henry Bunbury which will be out of copyright so we should look for that too. Andrew (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the listed building section is good, apart from the fact the list isn't sourced! I think 16 Denmark PLACE has been mis-transcribed at 16 Denmark STREET (the Camden LBC report has an appendix of listed buildings). This is why you should always cite sources - if you make a mistake, other people can fix it easily. As for maps, I have some out of copyright OS plans from the 19th century, which also have the former St Giles Hospital site marked, so I'll put them in when I get a mo. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I plan to investigate Denmark Place more closely as there's a good anecdote connected with someone who lived there. I've found Roque's map useful in other cases but it doesn't have much detail for this place. Andrew (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The National Library of Scotland has some high-res mapping from c. 1895 showing Denmark Street and Denmark Place with an overlay text stating "Site of St Giles Hospital AD 1101" and other historical landmarks. I've dropped a note at Media copyright questions about this, because I want to make sure we can reuse it here. Even if it's not actually free, we could probably get a fair-use rationale out of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Can you mention the musical artists associated with the street in the lead, ideally it should have its own paragraph.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure about a paragraph, most of the musicians mentioned in the body only get a brief mention, with the possible exception of the Stones and Regent Sound. I'll see what falls out of the GA review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Really? A good portion of the article discusses what musicians are associated with it and is largely why it is notable IMO. A good article would have a sound lead effectively summarising the core of the article. I've added a bit which should cover the essentials.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I knocked up a lead, but it was rewritten. :-/ ... anyway, I did think the lead needed more, I was just going to wait for the GA review to finish before making a firm decision which way to go. I've added a bit more history to it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks good now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 23:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this over the next couple days. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a shuffle round of images, which should resolve these concerns. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Still a bit of white space at the end of that section, though not as bad as earlier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the 20th century, Denmark Street had several Japanese businesses and was known as "Little Tokyo", but it became most famous as Britain's "Tin Pan Alley" housing numerous music publishers' offices. - Concurrently or subsequently?
  • to the Rookery - why the caps? The article refers to rookeries as a general noun. Do we have an article on this specific rookery?
The source actually calls it "the rookery of St Giles". So it's a specific instance of a rookery. Clarified. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Per WP:LEADLENGTH, this article should have one or two paragraphs in the lead at maximum
  • CN tag added.
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As this is an article on a British subject, shouldn't the metres go first?
Yes, the source had it in feet. Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A lot of the sections are very short and could probably be merged.
I've made a start on this but will come back to it later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation pages: Jacobite, Fender
I thought I'd fixed these, but it appears not. Anyway, now done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Standardise whether or not you give life spans for people mentioned
I would say not. I think the only person affected by this is Augustus Siebe. Should now be fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Any more information on Little Tokyo?
The only source that documents this in any substance is Keiko Itoh's book. I can see an entry in the London Gazette that confirms Tokiwa really existed, so I can trust the book as being reliable. To be honest, I think merging the few sentences that are present into the above section is probably the best course of action - any further thoughts on this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree, merger is a good idea. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Tokiwa restaurant and hotel - If this is the name of the restaurant (i.e. a proper name), it should not be in italics
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • By the end of the decade, - which decade, 1950s or 1960s?
The specific quotation in the source is "In the 1950s and 60s the short street was a remarkable place ... [with people] walking along it and being accosted from upstairs windows and invited in to listen to the new songs and records". Changed to "By the 1950s". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I've added a few Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. Without the clarification, a reader might not necessarily know who Jon Lord was (or mistake him for John Vernon Lord). Would a footnote fix this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In that case, why not a parenthetical or mdash? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • 1980s – present has a lot of really short sentences that should be expanded or merged; reads really roughly
I've redone this section. Some information was not very well sourced and trivial, so I've removed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • More later
  • refurbish a basement rehearsal room for The Sex Pistols, which McLaren had bought from Badfinger. - The room or the band?
Reworded Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Number 1-3 or Numbers 1-3?
This Mojo source says "Numbers". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • 800-seater - wouldn't 800-seat be just as clear and more English variant neutral?
I don't remember it reading "seater" last time I looked. Yes, should be "800-seat" per the source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • several notable musicians. - feels weaselly. Why not just name names?
The source says "those of many musicians" - I've removed the phrase entirely as it's not really important. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Link genres, perhaps?
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • became a notable distributor of Rickenbacker guitars in the 1960s when the Beatles played them. - again with that weasel word, "notable"
Interesting comment. In this case, it's because many shops distribute and sell Rickenbacker guitars, which doesn't make any of them particularly special. But Rose Morris are a bit more than that, due to additional maintenance and development, and are the only British shop to be explicitly acknowledged on Rickenbacker's offical history ([1]). Can you think of an alternative phrase? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd come straight out and say it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I've found a much better source that explains the relationship between Rose Morris and Rickenbacker in clearer terms. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Camden 2012, p. 30. doesn't go to a reference.
Should be 2010 (per all the other citations to it) - fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That's mostly it for prose concerns. A couple questions which may be related to BrE/AmE (in or on a street? in or on an album?), but even then it's not much of an issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your comments so far. I think I've addressed everything except the lead, for which I'll ping @Dr. Blofeld: as he had a hand in writing it. The article currently has 15K of prose, which suggests a lead of two paragraphs, possibly three at a push. The first draft of a suitable lead is here, which is three paragraphs, though the latter two could be condensed. It's had some rewriting since then. Let me see what consensus is and I'll figure out what needs to stay, and what needs to go. I'd expect mention of "Little Toyko" to drop entirely from the lead, which addresses the other issue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Do you not think that given how much of the article mentions some of the musicians and why they make the street notable that's it not worth mentioning some of them? I'm not too bothered either way, but I do like the intro to articles to be informative to the reader without them having to read the entire article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd try and trim to two paragraphs, mention a few who had very strong ties to Denmark Street, but avoid too much name dropping. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if you added "Popular musicians often socialised around the Gioconda café at No. 9 Denmark Street, and both David Bowie and the Small Faces have their origins at the café" to one of the paragraphs Rich in your draft that would be a bit better?. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, have a look now and see what you think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Much better. I'll have a look through the references tomorrow (already late here). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, looks fine!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Source review
  • The Collet source needs a year of publication and other bibliographic data (for the edition you reference)
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • OCLC or ISBN for British Music Education Yearbook?
No idea - the Google Books link doesn't list one. What can we do here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, it's a journal. My friend WorldCat says the ISSN is 0266-2329 (source: [2]). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Checked and now fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Standardize whether you have hyphens in the ISBNs or not
  • Make sure all of your ISBNs are 13 digit (as preferred by WP:ISBN)
My preference is 978-x-yyy-zzzzz-n and all ISBNs should be in this format now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The Itoh source should only have the page numbers in one of the two footnotes (either in the sfn template or in the cite book template, not both). Also, if this is a whole chapter in an academic book (Routledge articles average 20 pages), I'd be quite surprised if there's not enough material for at least a decent paragraph.
I feared this paragraph would have to be rewritten, and that has proven to be the case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Now the Itoh sfn footnote is not pointing to the book. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Year was missing from the main citation. Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What makes Tourdates.co.uk a reliable source?
The About us page states "the site also includes high quality editorial content (my emphasis) by kind permission of the team over at LondonTourdates magazine which features artist news, album /venue reviews plus much more." Accompanying text on the review suggests its a reprint of a published magazine. This leads me to believe the review here was done by a professional journalist in good standing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • My spotchecks reveal no close paraphrasing and show that information is supported. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. For what it's worth, I think the vast majority of sources can be searched for on Google Books. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, that looks to be that. Passing this as a GA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. Many thanks for a thorough and informative GA review that has helped increase the article's quality further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent review yup, many thanks Crisco for the good review and Ritchie for addressing the points!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Giaconda[edit]

It's "Giaconda", not "Gioconda". I think the source used for the name just spelled it wrong. Sources : [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] I appreciate this is contentious as a) the correct Italian for the Mona Lisa is La Gioconda (AFAIK Italian grammar does not need to inflect an adjective just because the noun is feminine) and b) a picture from 1975 has turned up spelling it with the "O". That doesn't necessarily mean it was its original name. So - your thoughts please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I looked into this quite carefully this morning when someone else gave me a barnstar for the article I started about this place. The problem is that the premises has had both spellings at different times under different ownership. To see this most clearly, it is best to look at contemporary photographs. Written transcriptions can't be trusted because it's not clear which incarnation they are getting their evidence from or how careful they are being. The history seems to be:
1. The original place was called La Gioconda. Different photographs of it can be seen here and here. Note that these photos are not quite the same as the Central Sound sign on the left is not present in the first. But, in both cases, the signage for La Gioconda is there and spelt with an O on both the protruding illuminated sign and the lettering over the door. And, of course, this is the correct Italian spelling.
2. In the 1990s, the place was renamed the Barino. I first learnt of this name in Glinert's The London Compendium and a photo of it at this time can be seen here.
3. Then in 2008, the place was made over as the Giaconda Dining Room — a fine-dining restaurant rather than a cafe. This was run by an Australian chef, Paul Merrony, and perhaps his Italian spelling was weak because photos clearly indicate that the signage had an A rather than an O now. See here, for example. There was then a name change to Giaconda Dining Rooms when they expanded and then they changed the name back to La Giaconda again but spelling it with an A this time. See here and here for this incarnation.
4. The place has now gone out of business and is being gutted and so I don't suppose there's much evidence on the ground now - there was no signage when I was there the other day. The blue plaque above has the A spelling but that's been done recently and was applied for by Merrony so can't be considered good evidence for the original.
So, I'm pushing back at the dedicated article and will copy this to the talk page there. That's probably the best place to thrash this out and the Denmark Street article should follow in due course.
I'll be keeping my eyes out for more evidence as there're plenty out there. I like this Time Out page, for example. It doesn't have La Gioconda in it but there's another interesting before/after of Denmark Street: Soho: then and now.
Andrew (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that excellent rationale. To be honest, if the original name is La Gioconda, how did so many book sources documenting that era and the British Plaque Trust get it wrong? They make the balance between verifiability, not truth awkward. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Now Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) has changed it to "Gioconda" in the lead and "Giaconda" elsewhere. That's definitely wrong, but I don't think reverting is the answer. Andrew, do you have a good reliable source for "Gioconda" - we'll need to tag the photo with it, otherwise somebody will look at the photo and conclude the text is "wrong". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I was not aware of the history of the place, but it sounds interestingly folkloric from the above. It was a tweak of the link that led me to change. I followed it to the café article and merely un-redirected it. I have no view on what the name should be in the article, but perhaps we could have one in proper, and the second one in parentheses "aka". -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)