Talk:The Golden Beam/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cavie78 (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this. Cavie78 (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

No need to reference things in the lead that are referenced in the body unless they're controversial
Constructed in white Portland stone in a mixed style of Egyptian Revival and Art Deco by the architect William Peel Schofield Think this could be worded better - Schofield designed the building, he didn't construct it Done
The building is included in the 2018 Heritage at Risk Register by Leeds Civic Trust, where it was given 'vulnerable' status Mix of tense - suggest "was included in the 2018 Heritage at Risk Register". Link to Heritage at risk Done
Piet de Jong is mentioned as the architect in the body, but this isn't mentioned in the lead. In fact the lead mentions William Peel Schofield but the body states design was by his firm, Schofield and Berry? Done
There are things in the lead which don't appear in the body, such as mention of the "glazed lantern" and graffiti and especially the listing. The lead should summarise the article, not present original information Done

Architecture and design

It seems strange to me to discuss the architecture and design in the first section, then speak about construction and design in the second section
Likewise, it seems odd to open with a discussion of the stone used in construction rather than the design Done - switched paras around
This section seems to move from construction to the present day, but it's not always obvious what's going on. The "former church space" is referenced, but there's no mention of the building being designed as a church until the following section. The first para discusses an extension but the second makes no distinction between different parts of the building - is the "mixed architectural style" partly due to construction taking place over several years? Was the extension built in the same style as the main building? Done
Link Art Deco. It's ok to link once in the lead and once in the body for terms the reader might not understand. I'd also mention, and link, Egyptian Revival, which is a distinct style (rather than just "Egyptian") Done

History

The site, located on the corner of Headingley Lane and Richmond Road, began as part of the grounds of the neighbouring Buckingham House suggest changing to "was originally part of the grounds" Done
The list What list? Done
No source given for second and third sentences (there's nothing about the building in The Art of Antiquity, which is the next source stated)

There's a small section on page 7 of The Art of Antiquity giving a few facts about de Jong's involvement.

The Leeds Church of Christ, Scientist, was the only building in England The only time we're told the building is the Leeds Church of Christ, Scientist, is in the lead
No information is given about the desire to construct the building. Why did the Church of Christ choose the site? Why did they hold a competiton to design the building? "The intended Sunday School" is mentioned later and the lead states this was built first. Why was this? Was it always the intention to expand to include a church?

Cannot find any more information on this.

subsequent shortages Shortages of what? Materials? Builders? Done
Any info about the closure of the church and why the building was sold to Leeds Girls' Done - new source & info
Elinor Lupton was a school governor Of Leeds Girls'?

Yes, I think this is sufficiently inferred by the context.

The site was closed by the school in 2010 Why did the school close? Done

Recent History

No source for first two sentences

The Connors source is for everything in the first para of this section.

What are the Headingley Development Trust and Leeds Music Hub? Done
No source for first sentence of second para Done
An approach was made in 2014 by JD Wetherspoon The lead and infobox say the building is owned by Wetherspoon? Done
Why was a premises licence refused? Done
It subsequently decided to apply When? What has become of the application to convert the building into a hotel? Done
Each proposed pub scheme Was there more than one proposal? Done - added hotel

Infobox

Looks ok

Images

What is the source for interior photograph? On what basis is PD claimed?
Galleries are discouraged. It's better to include images next to the relevant text. See here for more. I'd recommend removing all but the photo of the auditorium, which could be included in the History section

Why do you think the images used in the gallery are public domain? Cavie78 (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

What is the Former Elinor Lupton Centre, Headingley Lane, Headingley, Leeds letter and who is Nigel Connor? Why do you consider this a reliable source?
What is Elinor Lupton Centre, Leeds: Heritage Statement (Report) and who is Liz Humble? Why do you consider this a reliable source?

Initial responses:

Added the source to the foyer image

I think this is a copyvio. There's nothing in the report to suggest it's PD and it's age means the author could well still be alive. I've added comments about the other photos above Cavie78 (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My justification for including the gallery is to exemplify the features described in the Architecture and design section to show the significance of the building within the locality. I would say it is not excessive, with only a few image of the outside and even fewer of the interior included in the gallery.
I will follow your recommendations regarding wording in the lead section. Confusion has come through because Piet de Jong was an employee of Schofield and Berry when he designed the first part, but the later extension was entirely by Schofield and trying to express this concisely in an opening sentence is where the failure has come.
The Humble and Connor sources have to be found via the Leeds City Council planning portal, this is included in a <! -- -- > note because I didn't know how to explain on the article. They are written by planning professionals which I why I consider them reliable.

I've added a link to the Humble paper but I can't find anything by Nick Connor. What is the title of this letter? I see that you have only used the former as a source for architectural details, but I'm slightly concerned that the paper was commisioned by Wetherspoon in support of their planning application Cavie78 (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (blab) 16:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's it for my initial thoughts. There's a lot to do but I'll put the article on hold pending comments Cavie78 (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll devote a few hours to this on Wednesday night and try to address everything. I suspect you're familiar with the building as a Leeds resident yourself, so looking forward to collaborate for a good outcome. Rcsprinter¹²³ (warn) 00:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aiming for Friday now. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) 02:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem Cavie78 (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Made a start on the improvements, will resume when time. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) 16:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavie78: I think everything that you brought up has been amended or replied to. Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 22:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making improvements. I'm away until Tuesday 29th October so will have a proper look then Cavie78 (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm back. Thanks again for making improvements. I still have some concerns, which I think it's easier to record below:

Lead

No need to reference things in the lead that are referenced in the body unless they're controversial/likely to be challenged. The only statement I can see that *may* fall into this category is the last one regarding planning problems

Moved Wrathmell and Humbles sources into the body. I think LCT & YEP cites need to stay with their statements.

Architecture and design

Is there any need to include "(door surrounds)" and "(urns)" when the terms are linked?

Trying to make the language more accessible by decoding architectural terms, but as linked have removed parenthesis

Presumably the sentence that begins "Many original features and fittings survive..." is [2]?

Yes, have moved to end of sentence.

This hall is the former church space, with modern raked seating capable for 650 and remains of the organ and stage at one end suggest "The hall — the former church space — has raked seating for 650 people, with a stage and the remains of an organ at one end" Done
I think the last three sentences should be reordered. "The paving..." coming after the sentence that begins "Art Deco characteristics are found mostly internally..." (as it's concerned with design), followed by "Many original features and fittings survive..." (moving to the present day) and finally "The hall..." (the sentence I've suggested rewording above) Done
for the Victorian villas -> "for its Victorian villas" Done

History

began the process of opening its first Leeds site around 1912 by setting a competition for the design -> "began the process of opening its first Leeds site around 1912 by setting a competition for the design of a church and Sunday school. Done
The listing description incorrectly records that the main church was built first and that the western part was a later extension; the opposite is the case I think this would work better as a note. I'd also say "The Historic England listing" Done
In 1976, the building was given a Grade II listing by Historic England link Historic England Done
The First Church of Christ, Scientist experienced decreasing congregation numbers and moved to a smaller property on Otley Road, Headingley Your source says "...as numbers decreased the Church sold this space to the School whilst continuing to use it until moving to the present site in 1992" Include the date and the fact the school and church shared the building for a number of years Done

Recent History

The building is currently heavily graffitied and boarded up due to being continuously unoccupied since 2010 change to "The building has been continuously unoccupied since 2010 and is boarded up and heavily graffitied" Done
and David Lynn intending a tenancy to The Gym Group Do you mean Lynn intended to rent the building to The Gym Group? Was he intending to operate a franchise himself?

Changed to "lease", hopefully that's clearer.

a judge believed the establishment would target and attract students rather than local residents I'm not sure this is really what the source says. Suggest something like "In 2017, a judge at Leeds Magistrates' Court withheld Leeds City Council's decision to refuse an alcohol licence, citing "fundamental contradictions" at the heart of the company's application, such as the suggestion that the establishment would concentrate on serving food while simultaneously stating that it would offer "three for £5" deals on shots Done
It subsequently decided to apply to operate it as a 52-bedroom hotel instead -> It subsequently decided to apply to operate the building as a 52-bedroom hotel instead Done
It stated that "We would hope -> Wetherspoons stated that "We would hope"

Changed "it" to "Wetherspoon" in previous sentence instead

The hotel application has not yet received a decision from Leeds City Council -> "As of October 2019, the hotel application has not received a decision from Leeds City Council. There should really be a source too

Planning application is there in a note again. I can't think of a better solution, because there is no direct link, it won't work in a citation template format, and there won't be anything like a news report until the app is approved or refused. 🤷

Sources

As I said, I'm *slightly* concerned about the Humble report, as it was commissioned by Wetherspoon and is used so much in the article. I'm inclined to let it stand as you only use it for architectural details and history... but I'm also worried that it's not possible to link to and it's really difficult for a reader to find it to consult (I really struggled). With this in mind I'm going to ask another editor for advice.

Absolutely appreciate these concerns, and I'm not so easy with using it myself, but as it's by an independent heritage professional (despite who paid for the work) and I cannot find a single other source for much of it, being a somewhat obscure topic, there wasn't much option.

Cavie78, Rcsprinter123 - While I agree that the relative inaccessibility of the Humble source is regrettable, I think it's fine as a source per se. They're a reputable, and recognised, consultancy with some blue chip clients and their reputation is founded on the accuracy of their research. As an aside, you put in the HE listing as an External link, but I'd probably use it as the cite for the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of the History section. I don't think the cites following support that particular fact. It's an interesting and well-researched article on a sadly neglected building - Grade IIs aren't that easy to write about as there's rarely enough published commentary. You've done well to unearth what I think is more than sufficient for a GA. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input KJP1 Cavie78 (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

In my view by far the biggest issue remaining with the article is the images. You seem to have uploaded all of them to Commons with a 'public domain' tag. What makes you think the images in the gallery are PD? Nothing on the forum they're taken from/the Headingley & Hyde Park Liberal Democrats site state that they are PD and you are not the original author (it's highly unlikely that Penny is either, as you claim on Commons, considering she is in several of the photos in the same set). You can't simply take pictures from the internet and upload to Commons. If you think an image is essential to an article and it's still in copyright you can upload to Wikipedia (NOT Commons) stating the reasons why you think it is fair use, but I can't see how any of the images in the gallery justify this. The architectural drawings are more likely to be acceptable as fair use (although I don't think they are given that the design seems the same as the eventual build) but, unless it is clearly stated in 'Faces of Archaeology in Greece: Caricatures by Piet de Jong', they are not PD. In the UK, where these were presumably made, copyright of artistic works lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. I know you are only trying to make a better article, so please don't be offended, however you must respect copyright laws when editing. If you'd like advice about using copyrighted material in this or any other article I'm happy to help.

Hope that all makes sense and thanks again for your hard work so far Cavie78 (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for returning to the review, Cavie78. I have responded to a few points individually above (unsigned). As you can see, I did a bit of a photoshoot of various elevations for some free exterior images — for the image of rubbish down the side I should be able to pop over and get one myself to allow the Lib Dem photo to be deleted if needs be — but obviously the interior is inaccessible at this time. When I uploaded the images from the forum, I could not find anything on the website to indicate "all rights reserved" or "copyright" or whatever, and the photographers are no more than online pseudonyms. Yes, it was probably an assumption too far to post under the licence used. However, reading Wikipedia:Non-free content, I don't quite see why those and the watercolours cannot be retained under fair use, since they are not replaceable. So yes, advice on finding the most appropriate licences for each would be appreciated. Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) 01:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making changes. As far as images go, you should assume that everything you find is protected by copyright unless specifically stated otherwise. The person who posted images to the forum holds the copyright regardless of whether they give their real name (more info can be found here [1]). As far as non-free images go, the most pertinent part of the Non-free policy you link to can be found under 'Meeting the no free equivalent criterion'. Wikipedia contains many non-free images, but usage is strictly controlled to protect the rights of the copyright holders, the Wikipedia Foundation from litigation &c. It may well be difficult to access the interior of the building (actually it's probably illegal), but a) technically it can be done (i.e. the building has not been demolished) and b) just because you can't find a free image doesn't mean you can use a non-free image. While the images of the interior may be interesting, I don't think it can be argued that they're essential to the article. Would the reader fail to understand what you mean when you say the building "has raked seating for 650 people, with a stage and the remains of an organ at one end" without seeing a photo for example? There is a massive difference between an image being interesting and it being essential to an encyclopaedia article. For each and every piece of non-free media you must provide an adequate justification for its use. The watercolours by de Jong are great... but are they really essential to the article? The design looks very similar to the completed building and you have (or can easily obtain) free images of the two elevations so what do they really bring, beyond being pretty and 'interesting'? Cavie78 (talk) 11:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So essentialness is the key. What actions and changes are you requiring to move towards promotion? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) 01:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For non-free images, yes. I've asked for a second opinion about the Humble source. Other than that I think all the images, other than the one in the infobox, need to go Cavie78 (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait again. I've removed the images with licencing issues, but I think the free images of the exterior detail enhance the article and should remain. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) 01:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replacing the images. I'd like to see the external shots added to the body, but that's not going to stop me promoting. Just waiting for a second opinion on the source now then we're good to go. On a side note, I walked past the building last night and it really is a mess isn't it? Hope it can be restored and put to use soon. Cavie78 (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - but look what happened today... [2] planning’s gone through, now only a licence to get. I will try to update the article tonight. Since we’re apparently so close, maybe a meet should be on the cards, if you’re interested in local history. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (relate) 03:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, following a second opinion on the Humble source, happy to promote. Great work Rcsprinter123! Cavie78 (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]