Talk:The Forum, Norwich/GA1

GA Review

Passed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 14:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been here for a while, but looks in good shape - let's see if we can't get it through. I used to spend quite a bit of time in Norwich and walked past this place regularly: never knew half of what's in the article, though!

Opened in 2001, the building was designed by the British architectural firm Sir Michael Hopkins and Partners and exists on the site of and replaces the Norwich Central Library, which burnt down in 1994: could you cut this down and maybe split it? In particular, "and exists on and replaces..." is a tricky construction.

I thought for a while about how to write this sentence and this was the best I could come up with. If you have a suggestion on how exactly to word it I would appreciate hearing it.

Hm: could we try The building opened in 2001 and was designed by the British architectural firm Sir Michael Hopkins and Partners. It was built on the site of the Norwich Central Library, which burnt down in 1994.? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I've added a slightly altered version.

~~Following a design which was initially rejected: a little ambiguous: does it follow the (rejected) first version or a (revised) second version?~~

The sources are vague on the different proposals, but I've changed a few things to hopefully make it clearer.

Suggest using the inflation template to bring the monetary amounts up to date, per WP:ENDURE: the more time goes on, the further out of whack these are going to be with people's instinctive sense of how much money they are.

done. There was one case where I don't know the year so it's difficult to do this.

Norwich had been the first city to adopt the Public Libraries Act 1850, establishing a free public library at Charing Cross in 1857: most people will think of London here; can this be slightly rephrased.

removed.

at 7:20 a.m. British Summer Time (BST),: if the time zone is simply local time, there's no good reason to give it.

removed.

USD $3 million: per WP:OVERLINK, we don't generally link major currencies, but could this be converted into sterling as it's a UK article?

The source says the donation was made in dollars, so I'll stick with that. I've provided a conversion.

The project received both "widespread public opposition" and "widespread support", : reads as scare quotes: suggest rephrasing and paraphrasing.

fixed.

which now contains (as of...) - WP:ENDURE again.

fixed

Do we know why the building attracted its awards? We're quite good on why it was criticised, but vague on why it was praised.

I've tried to write the article to be reflective of the sources, which are largely critical. I've added in a bit on why it was given the RIBA award, though.

The library was credited with having "well-maintained book stocks": who supplied these quotes?

added

Could note 16 (I think a PDF of the construction plans) have a bit more information as to exactly what it is?

added

Images

Suggest adding alt text to images for accessibility.

Done

File:The Forum Norwich 2015.JPG: no issues, as UK has freedom of panorama.
File:Norwich central library.jpg: how do we know it's CC licensed? A link to the original publication would help.

I didn't upload this to commons nor place it in the article. Do you think it should be removed? I am happy to do this if needs be.

I'd suggest first doing a bit of digging, starting with a reverse image search. Sadly, the UK has some very strange laws on unpublished works: if it has never been published, it remains in copyright until 2039. If it has been published, unless it was clearly released into the public domain, it's in copyright until at least 70 years post creation (so 2032). The uploader doesn't appear to be active on Commons any more, but it might also be worth attempting to contact them to see if they were donating it on behalf of the library. The other way to go might be fair use, which we can do with photographs of dead people; there's no black-and-white statement in the Wikimedia policy that the same applies to destroyed buildings, but it would seem to be a similar situation: however, that generally only works as far as using the image on the article about its subject, which this isn't (quite). Honestly, I think we'll probably end up having to remove it, but you never know. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norwich Central Library Fire.jpg: verified as a flickr import.
File:Norfolk and Norwich Millennium Library (30705345963).jpg: no issues

Spot checks

All online, which makes this easy. No concerns about plagiarism or CLOP.

Note 4: checks out.
Note 9 checks out.
Note 34: checks out.

All good here - just waiting on images and your thoughts as to the content points. Please do let me know if I've been unclear or unfair in any respect. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks very much for this, your comments are appreciated. I'm currently involved in some other business so there will be a delay in responding to your comments. I hope this is fine. Willbb234 15:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: no rush and no particular deadline, but any update on when you might be able to take a look at this? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Hi, sorry I haven't got to this yet. My grandfather passed away last week and so I have been very busy and haven't had much time to edit. I am still figuring out travel to Norwich for the funeral. I should be able to look at this in between now and then, but otherwise it will be after. It's now top of my list. Willbb234 00:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no - sorry to hear about your loss. No problem on the timing: happy to do this review at whatever pace suits you. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: I think I've addressed all your comments. Thanks again for your thorough review. There's still an issue with one of the images which I'd appreciate hearing your response to. Willbb234 22:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff: all now looks good, with the exception of that image. See above: there's a couple of routes we might go down for the image, though honestly I think it's unlikely that any of them will work in this particular situation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: Any thoughts on this? Seems very close to the line and hopefully easy enough to tip over? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Apologies again. I don't really have the time to be chasing this up so I've removed it from the article. I also agree with your above assessment of the image and think this is the best course of action to avoid any future issues. Thanks, Willbb234 21:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.