Talk:Architecture of Leeds

Architecture of Leeds has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 5, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
May 30, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Good article

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Architecture of Leeds is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Leeds

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Leeds, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Leeds 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.LeedsWikipedia:WikiProject LeedsTemplate:WikiProject LeedsLeeds articles

Untitled

This page requires some work. It has only just started and citations will be added in time, the layout will also be tidied up and there is a lot more text to be added. I'm just putting the bare bones in for now. Mtaylor848 (talk)

Boxes

Are the boxes at the top asking for citations and expansion to the article still relevent? Should they be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtaylor848 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced is no longer applicable as there are references in the article. The references may need improving but probably not worth a {{Refimprove}} tag been added. The article has probably grown since expansion request so that one can go as well. The tag on WP:OR, I am unsure as to what it is referring to as the person who tagged has not given any details of what the problem is. Suggest removing it and if someone thinks the tag is valid can re-add and then explain what the problem is. Keith D (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all of them Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has too many issues. It has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include but are not limited to:

This article has insufficient inline citations, which are used to verify the information.
- Most of "1600 to 1800" is unreferenced
- Along with "Nineteenth Century"
- The second half of "Twentieth Century"
- "Awards" also
For some of the references, especially in the History section, they don't seem to completely cover all of the information that they follow.
- For instance, "This was one of Leeds' best examples of Georgian Architecture, it has since been demolished.[8]"; the reference doesn't seem to note anything about Georgian Architecture.

Questions and comments placed on this page will receive responses. Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments

While after closer inspection I agree with most of the point made, Awards are all cited by what is now citation 30. However, the page does still require some work, but with effort, I think it has the potential of meeting Featured article standard. Mtaylor848 (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA resubmit

Corrections and improvements have been made to the page and it has been resubmitted for GA status.Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted the bare references over to {{cite web}} templates and replaced a couple with better sources. Though I had to remove 2 that were to wiki-mirror sites and I could not come up with a suitable replacement. Keith D (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied up the Betjeman para - he was spelled wrong 3 times in 2 different ways. Neither of the sources actually describes his statements, so it's a bit iffy!

Beyond that, I feel the article needs a more solid approach to the whole topic, somehow. There's no mention of Listed Buildings. no overview of booms and busts and how they affected buildings, etc. It needs someone with a copy of Pevsner (ISBN 978-0300107364) or similar book to treat the older buildings more thoroughly. I've got the book, but not sure I've got the time/stamina! PamD (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Awards section needs more work - I can't find anything on the web about the "Leeds Architecture/al Awards" in general, just various sites which mention winners. Not sure if it's a Council thing, doesn't seem to be a Civic Trust thing, all a bit of a mystery. But the article needs something about it. The RIBA awards - need to say what awards, when, etc. Too vague at present. PamD (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm afraid some of it may be plain wrong. "Headingley Castle" is now Victorian, as the article says, and the reference is to the Leodis site which just mentions it as being in the background. I've seen nothing to suggest that there was ever a medieval castle here (and am currently reading Eveleigh Bradford's book about Headingley!) There was an ancient Manor House in Headingley, some of which may be incorporated in Headingley Hall retirement home, but that's completely different. The cite for Wetherby castle is Leodis again and doesn't mention anything except existence of a street called "Castle Gate", but here is a better ref. And where are the uncited pre-1600 cottages "in Headingley and in Alwoodley"? The reason there's not much early architecture in Leeds is that it's been prosperous enough to knock most of it down and rebuild, rather than because it was small, though we could mention that the frontages on Briggate still reflect the original plot boundaries of 3 perches, 49.5 feet. And the fact that the shape of development in Briggate, with arcades and yards, again goes back to the original creation of burgage plots there in 1207. The Town Hall is magnificent Victoriana, but not gothic. There's also of course the perpetual question of whether we're talking "Leeds" or "City of Leeds" - if the latter, then there may need to be more about Otley etc. Are we going to mention back-to-backs and other housing issues? Leeds was a key place for them (until I moved to Leeds I didn't know what they were and thought the phrase meant narrow through terraces with a back lane). Sorry, but the article seems to need a lot more work before being considered at GA. PamD (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Architecture of Leeds/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello! I'll be reviewing Architecture of Leeds (the article, not the actual architecture), in line with the Good Article criteria. I see there has been a previous review, and I shall be using the comments made there in this review. Good luck! - weebiloobil (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC) A comparison of the changes made since the last review[reply]

Oh dear

Plus points

All but one of the pictures are properly licensced
Passes WP:LAYOUT
Passes WP:JARGON
The article is broad, yet focused
The article is stable

Urgent!

The fair use rationale for File:Quarry Hill Flats1.jpg appears to be malformed.

Bad bits

This is not a definitive list

Spelling and grammar: "While the first church in Leeds is thought to have been built around 600 AD.[2]"
Fails WP:LEAD: see WP:BOLDTITLE for why
Fails WP:AVOID: "It is generally regarded as one of the best examples of Norman churches in Yorkshire.[4]" by who? generally? one of the best? too unspecific
Fails WP:VERIFY: "Headingley^[7] and Wetherby^[8]^[9] both had castles dating from this era, however there are no notable visible remains of either of the structures. Headingley Castle was redeveloped into a Tudar-Gothic Villa of the same name.^[7]" - source 7 is a photo of a hotel, with the castle glimpsed in the b/g. Where is the source for this info?
Fails WP:NPOV: the best example being "Leeds now has some of the best high rise architecture outside of London, in particular Bridgewater Place. "

The above includes only one example for each of the failed criterion; if you need any explanation, or more examples, feel free to contact me.

Unfortunately, I feel that I have to fail the article, based on the information provided above. Feel free to relist the article at WP:GAN when you feel it is ready. Thanks - weebiloobil (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors Notes

Point 1: Looked over, needs more attention

Point 2: Sorted

Point 3: To look over

Point 4: To look over

Point 5: Sored

Licence Malformation

The licence for Quarry Hill is replicated three times to provide it with sufficient justification for fair use on each page. If anyone knows a better way, please tell me. Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings in Leeds

I have created (and populated) this Category in Wikimedia Commons. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA resubmitting progress

I have added content to the page, yet it still requires citations, I intend to add these as and when (hopefully promptly). There are few photos of different types of twentieth century private houses in Leeds, currently limiting the variety of photographs available. I intend to embelish on such area (with refernce to Norman Ashton and other developers), although information available for citations is suprisingly limited. There is a lot that could be written about specific areas such as Seacroft which were redeveloped on a large scale with huge social implications, yet I am trying to avoid excesive emphisis on such examples. It is still very much a work in progress.Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

Further to the above, does anyone have a particular prefernce towards the layout with regards to either mixing housing in with the eras listed or should they be seperate. I just thought I would gain concessus on such things.Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire project re-evaluation

I have put this page at medium as appose to low. Looking at a precedent I have judged this by the fact Architecture of Birmingham is high on the West Midlands project. While I think this is excesive, I think this page deserves a medium rating as it forms a significant part of the history/culture of the area. Should you feel it ought to be reverted then please make your views and reasoning apparent in this section first in order to gauge concesus. Ta, Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reset this to a B-class for WP:YORKS as A-class is above GA and a formal review is required by more than 1 editor to get to A-class. I also tend to not use A-class but rather to go from GA to peer review then submit for FAC. Keith D (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture project

I have put the page in the scope of the architecture project (see page top)Mtaylor848 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds or Leeds

In view of the acrimonious discussions at Talk:Leeds, we need to be sure whether this article is about "Leeds" (the place people claim doesn't exist) or "City of Leeds" the met district. It might be worth clarifying in the lead section. If we're including Harewood, then we also include Barwick, Otley, etc. PamD (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

architectural history, or visible architecture?

Are we writing about the architecture visible today, or also including the architecturally significant but departed buildings? Perhaps someone in the Architecture WikiProject could comment? PamD (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that both would come under the scope of the page, departed buildings would be poertinent I suppose, providing of course this was made clear in the text and amoungst any photographs. I suppose however that current architecture would make up the bulk of such an article. I am not in the architecture project, but that is just my take on it and how I have been editing. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an example of the above, I have added text and images on the Quarry Hill and Leek Street flats, both of which were demolished in the 1980s. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

I have included the following citation (^[1]). I got it from Google Books, if anyone could could find the ISBN number it would be more suitable as a book based and not a web based reference.

If you look at the "About this book" tab, top left in Google Books, it gives the ISBN - 9780416367706 here. Probably best to give a book-shaped reference but include the url as a bonus. Cheers, PamD (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "A Social History of Housing, 1815-1985 By John Burnett". Retrieved 01/02/2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Architecture Awards

I'm trying to find out about the Leeds Architecture Awards - have emailed a couple of enquiries, waiting for replies. It would be great to be able to list the winners in some or all categories over the 19 years it's been running, but Googling doesn't find me a comprehensive article about it. Might enquire at Local Studies library next time I'm there. Meanwhile, the website in reference "1" doesn't seem to be working, and doesn't sound terribly authoritative about architecture, so I'm inclined to cut the 2 bits citing it (I'm pretty sure those RIBA awards must have been for restoration work rather than the original buildings, anyway, so it's a bit confusing to say the buildings got the awards). What do you think? PamD (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On inspection of no1, I would be inclined to agree with you, the neutrality of the source is disputable. I am not altogether to sure of the award schemes that are ongoing. The information available via the internet regarding such material is limited and so it is necersary for such things to be cited via other sources. Good look with your research.Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas

Just a few idea I have to write about within this article. However I do not have time right at the moment. If anyone would like to help, feel free to join in.

The growth of heavy industrial buildings, in particularly around Hunslet and Holbeck (1900s)
The Langbar Gardens Estate, Swarcliffe, its construction and demolition [DONE]
The growth of Cross Gates, circa 1900, considering it's absorbtion into the Leeds sprawl
Farm Hill, Meanwood, building and demolition
The replacement of many council estates post 2000, Langbar Gardens, areas of Hunslet etc
The building of villas (1800s) and council estates (1900s) to replace slums in areas outside of the immediate city area such as Otley and Wetherby
Clarence Dock redevelopment (2000s) [DONE]

I have found it difficult to cite such things via the internet, however there are numerous souces available on printed text. Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references do not have to be to web sources, books and other printed sources can be used to provide references to the article as long as sufficient detail is given for someone to locate the source if required. The title, year, ISBN number and page number for the information would be a good start. Keith D (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings and architecture of Bristol

Buildings and architecture of Bristol is featured article of the day (11/02/2009). Perhaps something could be taken from this. The page obviously meets similar standards to what we are aiming forMtaylor848 (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

I was thinking that may be we should bring the "John Betjeman on Leeds' architecture" and "Maxwell Hutchinson on Leeds' Architecture" into a single section but cannot think of a suitable header for it. Any thoughts? Keith D (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something like 'Notable Opinions on Leeds architecture' or something. The problem here is one was a poet, the other an architect/town planner, meaning they can't be linked by their occuptaion. If they are going to be brought together, I think they should still have seperate subtitles.Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was still thinking of retaining some sub-headings, just looking at compressing the TOC and grouping them together, with scope for expansion with other opinions. Keith D (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Status

This page has today been awarded GA status. Thank You to all those involved. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article (FA) Status

It is my intention to review this page and submit it for consideration to be FA standard. If anyone has any suggested improvements then please discuss them on the talk page, so we can all 'pull in the same direction'. Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

I have nominated the page for a Peer Review in prep for FA nomination. Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

See Wikipedia:Peer review/Architecture of Leeds/archive1 for review.

Image sizes

In line with the review, all images (bar the lead image and the centred Seacroft image) should be resized to default, any objections?Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Look

I can't see any mention of "The Leeds Look" architectural style of the 1980s! I've knocked together a separate article on this. I think there should be a link to my article. EricPolymath (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granary Buildings

I can't see any mention of the Granary Buildings which is a Grade II* listed building. I've knocked together a separate article on this see Granary Buildings, Leeds. I think there should be a link to my article.EricPolymath (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Pauls House

I can't see any mention of St Pauls House which is a Grade II* listed building. I've knocked together a separate article on this see St Pauls House, Leeds. I think there should be a link to my article EricPolymath (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds International Pool

The paragraph on Leeds International Pool is misleading, it states that "the pool was less than an inch too small for Olympic standard", this is well-known as a myth in Leeds, and a quick google will reveal that the pool was never intended to be Olympic size (there were no plans for an Olympic bid in Britain at the time), and the pool was in-fact "International size" - hence its name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.25.37 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Architecture of Leeds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090210164052/http://www.leeds.gov.uk:80/discover/discovery.asp?page=200335_519878567 to http://www.leeds.gov.uk/discover/discovery.asp?page=200335_519878567&topic=200335_316509426&subsection=2003611_627147854&subsubsection=2003611_77633083

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Architecture of Leeds/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The page has been judged by people outside of the project to be of 'Good Article' Standard, therefore I think it is justifiable for it to be so in the Yorkshire Project. Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 08:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Architecture of Leeds. 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 true or failed 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Architecture of Leeds. 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.leeds365.co.uk/briefhistory2.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.visitchurches.org.uk/content.php?nID=11&churchID=164
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161028024158/http://www.hydeparkpicturehouse.co.uk/history.php to http://www.hydeparkpicturehouse.co.uk/history.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.electricpalace.com/links.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229222722/http://www.iht.org/motorway/a58ma64mleeds.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/a58ma64mleeds.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.secretleeds.com/forum/PrintMessages.aspx?ThreadID=1428
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marketingleeds.com/champions/championsdetail.aspx?id=36
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/resources/DCHpamphlet2006.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110826061412/http://riponleeds.anglican.org/documents/resources_ministry/Strategy_for_mission_and_ministry_in_UPAs_march_06.pdf to http://riponleeds.anglican.org/documents/resources_ministry/Strategy_for_mission_and_ministry_in_UPAs_march_06.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.leedsliveitloveit.com/Visitors/News/tabid/71/Default.aspx?archive=1
Added archive https://archive.is/20081014031453/http://www.leedsfilm.com/films.aspx?id=111 to http://www.leedsfilm.com/films.aspx?id=111
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.leedscivictrust.org.uk/view.aspx?id=21

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Architecture of Leeds. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Architecture of Leeds. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219123554/http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/lirr/ to http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/lirr/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829230736/http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/lirr/00.shtml to http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/lirr/00.shtml
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.online-leeds.co.uk/districts/colton/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091017082927/http://leedsarchitecture.com/ to http://www.leedsarchitecture.com//

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "A Social History of Housing, 1815-1985 By John Burnett". Retrieved 01/02/2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[1]