Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century edit

Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following a helpful Peer review, I hope this attempt at a comprehensive list of Grade I listed buildings in England dating from the 20th century is ready for FLC. I've ensured there is a corresponding article for every entry. I've not quite achieved that level of completeness with the images, with three missing. The usual sources couldn't help, and two have exceptionally light on-line presences. To explain my thinking on the order, I've taken a thematic approach; cathedrals/churches/war memorials/other memorials/houses/public buildings; and chronologically within those groups. The table is fully sortable. If nothing else, it will give interested editors the opportunity to derisively critique the inclusion of some structures, and enjoy suggesting their preferred alternatives. Any and all comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment edit

  • What's the initial sort order of the table? It isn't the name of the building or the architect or the date of either completion or listing. It seems completely random, unless I am missing something obvious...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a very fair question, and one that was asked at PR. I went for thematic - cathedrals/churches/war memorials/other memorials/houses/public buildings - and chronologically within that. Now, whether that was the right decision…? I could go strictly chronological, or alphabetical (although that seems equally random), or something else. Would appreciate views on the best approach. KJP1 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think alphabetizing the name column would be best. I do like the thematic organization, but even then there's chapels interspersed with the churches, memorials with war memorials (but then other memorials later), and other irregularities like the house of St Catherine's College being organized with the college rather than other houses, which are separate from apartment blocks. Maybe change some of them to broader categories (like Bridge instead of Footbridge, Road bridge, and Suspension bridge) so sorting the Type column would work better.
ChrisTheDude,Reywas92 - Many thanks indeed for the input. I've gone for the suggested Alphabetic approach, and I think it's better. I also took the opportunity to iron out a few other quirks; combining the Footnotes, simplifying the Types, and standardising titles. If either/both of you had time for a review, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) edit

PresN - Hi, apologies, but the technical aspects of setting up tables are pretty much beyond me, and I've not got a clue as to what I need to do in response to your comment. I've had a look at the relevant Accessibility page of the MoS and at the accompanying tutorial, but I'm afraid I still can't work out what I'm supposed to do. If you were able to give a little more guidance, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. KJP1 (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: You had it mostly right- you just didn't need to wrap the caption in a {{sronly}} template, because I made the {{English Heritage listed building header}} template do that already. I fixed it, so you're all good now. --PresN 16:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PresN - very much appreciated. Thank you. KJP1 (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • Support on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824 - with sincere apologies for the delay, a belated appreciation and thanks for your Support. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Dropping a quick note that I'm currently working on an image review. So far I've gotten down to the letter 'H' – hoping to finish tonight or tomorrow. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image review passes; details below:
  • I'm a little dismayed that the alt text for each image consists solely of the building's name—see recent building FAs such as Felix M. Warburg House, 270 Park Avenue (1960–2021), and 550 Madison Avenue for examples of high-quality alt text for images of buildings—but upon further investigation, I discovered that {{EH listed building row}} puzzlingly makes no allowance for custom alt text. While I strongly believe this should be rectified, it would be unfair to mark down an FLC candidate for the failings of a template, and the alt text that is present in the listicle is better than nothing.
  • All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
  • All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
  • Sources for all images check out, although I did choose to AGF on a couple dead Flickr source links.
  • The only other comment I have is that the empty image boxes (namely Johnston Monument, New House, and St. Catherine's College Gymnasium) should be made unprintable; see Help:Printing#Controlling_print for details.
Support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan620 - First off, thanks very much for the review, and for the Support. Greatly appreciate the time you've taken. On the missing images, I'd be very pleased to make them unprintable - if I had any idea how to do so. I've tried to follow the instructions with the Johnston Memorial as a test, but it doesn't appear to have made any difference. Could you expand on the "how" I should go about this. I'm very sorry, but I'm rather a technical numpty on matters relating to templates (see Table captions above), and a lot else besides (see below). On the issue of alt text, I absolutely appreciate your concern. I've always tried to include useful alt text, e.g. Sandringham House, but I've no idea how to do it in this table, or even if it is possible. If there is a workaround I can adopt, I'd be pleased to do so. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: No problem. After I wake up some more and have my morning coffee, I'm going to put in an edit request on the template's talk page. Similar to the issue with the alt text, the issue with the placeholder's printability appears to be one with the way the template is coded. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 11:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've followed through on this. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC
  • "the vast majority at the lowest grade, Grade II.": do we need be told again, so soon, that Grade II is the lowest grade?
No, we do not. KJP1 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason "against" is bolded?
I was trying to indicate why modern listed buildings are such a rarity, but I agree it wasn't clear, and have removed. KJP1 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it right to say Lutyens has "twenty-one buildings"? The OED stresses "buildings" have walls, roof and an interior space. Would "structures" also work, without giving a slightly misleading feel?
A very fair point, and have adopted structures. KJP1 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking the St Cat's bike shed just on the words "bike shed" is a bit of an EASTEREGG – any chance the link could be tweaked slightly to make it clear it's not about bike sheds in general?
Have tried to improve this, but let me know if you think it could be improved further. KJP1 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about "including England's only Grade I listed bike shed." - This makes it specific and still links to the right location? - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done - with thanks. KJP1 (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. The technical breakdown of the listing details is excellent, and the table wonderful. - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat - Many thanks indeed for the very helpful comments, and glad you liked the list. KJP1 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Lovely piece of work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to review, and glad you liked it. KJP1 (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley edit

  • "Lutyens is followed by the Dane, Arne Jacobsen" – is the architect's nationality relevant?
Can't remember why I saw fit to mention Jacobsen's nationality, I normally dislike introducing these unnecessarily. It certainly was here, and I've taken it out. KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent with your London addresses:
  • A lot of them are in the City of Westminster, but though you say so for 55 Broadway, Westminster Cathedral, the Cavell, Queen Alexandra and Queen Victoria memorials and Rodin's Burghers, you don't say so for the Admiralty Arch, Buckingham Palace, Whitehall or Trafalgar Square.
  • "City of London, London" looks silly to me, besides being inconsistently applied (to the Lloyds building but not to the Midland Bank in Poultry).
  • You tell us the names of one other relevant London borough – Uxbridge – but not those in which are to be found Somers Town, the South Bank, Bloomsbury, Hampstead Garden Suburb, Highgate, Regent's Park, Twickenham, and Tower Hill.
It would be nice to be consistent, but I must emphasise how much I have enjoyed making the acquaintance of this article again. Splendid stuff! Tim riley talk 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley - Many thanks for having a look. I shall try to get the London addresses consistent over the course of the afternoon - likely interrupted by a siesta! KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An admirable plan. I usually have forty winks after lunch myself. Tim riley talk 12:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley - I hope they are now done, but I have 3 queries, all relating to Regent's Park. Our article tells me that this is split between Westminster and Camden. I've guessed that Camden covers the more northernly bits, and have therefore placed the Penguin Pool, the Gorilla House, and the Royal College of Physicians in Westminster. Do you happen to know whether that's right? KJP1 (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. Prince Albert Road separates Camden to the north from Westminster to the south. I'm not sure our article is right in saying that any of the park is within the borders of Camden, though what the administrative arrangements rather than the geographical details are I know not. Tim riley talk 13:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a final read-through I am very happy to add my support for the elevation of this article to FL. A delight from start to finish. Tim riley talk 13:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley - very greatly appreciated. All best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial edit

Coming in on the coattails, but. Copy-edited a couple of odd bits in the lead; the rest is perfection "from the beginning unto the end". And a beautiful table! Shame about those two missing images, of course. It might be worth asking at the relevant Wiki projects, perhaps? ——Serial Number 54129 13:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 - Really appreciate the comments and the Support. And glad you liked the list. I know, the two missing images are bloody infuriating! For the Johnston, I've asked at the Hertfordshire Project but had no joy. For a work by Gill, it is weirdly uncovered online, this [2] being the only image I've been able to find, and it's not usable. The problem with The New House is that the family guard their privacy, and there is absolutely no public access anywhere near. What images there are online are ferociously copyrighted! I shall continue to search. KJP1 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. for completeness, I've also asked at the University of Oxford project for a pic of the St Catz gym/squash courts, but also without success. KJP1 (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
p.p.s. I wonder if I could use the Johnston under Fair Use, as I did for Tower of the Koutoubia Mosque? I might ask Nikkimaria. KJP1 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's always worth asking, but I've found that it's difficult to get justification for free-use use in a list, which is why there are a couple of gaps in this article I wish I could fill. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat - I fear you might be right. But surely this image of Tate, [3], which is all over the web, must be out of copyright? As for Day-Lewis, this sits on Commons? Ted Hughes, I guess, is still under the copyright of the estate. KJP1 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, KJP1, I think that the image has to be "the object of discussion in an article", rather than a small portion of it. That would be why the tower passed the NFCC criteria—because the article was about the tower itself—whereas that may not be the case here. Still asking. ——Serial Number 54129 13:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, so a passing mention in a list is insufficient grounds. It's a pity, as gaps in lists are a real bugbear! KJP1 (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please get a second opinion though! I wouldn't want to wrongly rob an image from you  :) ——Serial Number 54129 13:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Grade_I_listed_buildings_in_England_completed_in_the_20th_century/archive1&oldid=1222868768"