Talk:Port of Liverpool Building

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Port of Liverpool Building article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Port of Liverpool Building 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
March 3, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Merseyside Mid‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Suggestion

I think it would be really helpful if the costs for the building could show what the money is worth today.

I found this website which can convert the money from different times: [1]

According to it:

£250,000 in 1907 is today worth £19,709,435.48

and

£350000 in 1907 is today worth £27,593,209.68

Can these be used in the article? I suggest rounding them. Tsange ^►talk 19:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they are reliable they probably would be a good addition, but I wouldn't like to say because I've never come across that website before --Daviessimo (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a similar website here ^[1] You select the year you want the currency converted from, then the ammount and it will then convert it to moden day ammounts / standards. The website goes as far back as 1270. Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter/

Some notes from GAN

I'm not an expert in English style, but it seems that often simple statements are embellished with too many words. Do something about which (too many sentences like "Here is A, which is B", two "which" in one sentence).

Bits and pieces:

"reinforced concrete frame, which not only made the building structurally strong, but also fire resistant" - appears twice. Nothing is absolutely fire resistant; in the first instance the relativity is pointed out, but not in the second one. Also it raises a question - is fire resistance a matter of all-round cladding of concrete columns in stone (stone-clad concrete vs. bare concrete) or of concrete as such (concrete vs. masonry).

I've clarified that the fire resistance was relative and was important because it was such a rare feature for a building at this time

"given that a large portion of the building costs were spent on decorations and fittings, the inside of the building is lavishly decorated using expensive materials ... " - what's the point of this juxtaposition? Sounds redundant. And if you simply say "a large portion was spent ..." I beg you say just how large. 5%? 15%? (two numbers stated, 250 and 350 thousand, don't say much on the subject). Seriously, take a look at financials if you could. Finishes often look deceptively rich but in fact are just a few per cent of building cost.

I've removed the 'given that', which shouldn't have been there and added an approximate figure. It is mentioned earlier in the article that the building cost £250,000 to built with a further £100,000 on furnishings. As you can see from the talk above there is a website that can convert figures into a modern equivalent, but I wasn't sure how reliable the source was

"Asphalt was coated all around the basement, including on the floors and walls, in order to make sure it stayed dry". Did yoy mean "They coated ashphalt with something else ..." or simply "Floors and walls of the basement were coated with asphalt for moisture protection"? In this case all sounds odd, moisture protection does not require sealing all surfaces (quite the opposite).

I've re-worded this to clarify that the asphalt coverage was extensive and that is was asphalt that was doing the covering

"Nonetheless the building's structural integrity from its reinforced concrete design, meant that much of the building could be re-occupied with only temporary repairs" - again too many words for a simple statement.

I've removed the reasoning for the structural integrity to make the sentence shorter

"A sixth level of the building, which had been 'dismantled' in the aftermath of the Second World War was also to be restored providing a series of luxury apartments". I'd recommend moving the fact of dismantled floor into WW2 section.

Personally I don't think this needs to move, otherwise you are going to repeat the 'dismantling part twice in several sentences'. The restoration of the floor is more notable than its dismantling, which was just part of the repairs made post ww2

"building's form is structured around a full height hall" - "structured" seems to be the wrong word here. Perhaps "centered" or "the hall ties together the floorplans" (just like Big Lebowsky's rug tied the room together :)).

changed to centered

"that would fully restore the Grade II* listed building" - description that follows completely contradicts definition of "restoration": too many significant changes for true restoration. Rehabilitation, perhaps?

It may appear as if the work carried out was significant, but it was in fact only superficial and as such was a 'restoration'. The building was in use before the work and there was nothing actually wrong with it. It was just the whole building was given a facelift, to make it look brand new (i.e. new fittings, electrics, plumbing, cleaning to stonework, repairing worn and damaged stonework etc)

Regards, NVO (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to the article based on the points above and explained what I have done. Regarding the 'which' issue, I can change some of these if you really want, but as it is only really an issue of grammatical preference, I'm wary of changing too much, unless of course it will stop the article gaining GA status. Cheers --Daviessimo (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

25% on finishes? lucky bastards, did they get land and utility hookup for free? I'm more used to 25% left for all construction costs. Oh well, it was a century ago. Another suggestion: the only clue as to the building's dimension (80 ft) is hidden somewhere in Architecture; I recommend moving dimensions ("264 ft by 216 ft, and from the pavement to main cornice the height is 80 ft") to a more prominent place. These grand office buildings have deceptive looks (a floor can be eigth meters high or only three) that don't convey scale well. NVO (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the full dimensions to the architecture section and the height into the intro and infobox. Unfortunately the source doesn't say which figure is the depth and which is the width. I suspect it is deeper than wide as is the case with the two other Pier Head buildings, but I wouldn't like to say for definite. --Daviessimo (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 19:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I haven't read the article yet, I'll do that over the next few days and then make some initial comments. I do note however that there is heavy reliance on one source, which on inspection is a primary source. WP:Captions are sometimes too long. The gallery may not be appropriate per WP:IG. And some of the images sandwich text, which is against guidance on MOS:IMAGES. The external links do not appear to meet WP:EL guidelines - the commons link is the accepted and appropriate method of linking to images. SilkTork *^YES! 19:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Sorry for delay

I have been ill for the past few days. Recovering now, and getting back on track. I will look at this over the next few days. SilkTork *^YES! 10:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, hope you get well soon --Daviessimo (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Stable. Article was created in 2004, and has attracted less than 40 editors in that time. The main contributor is Daviessimo, with nearly 60% of the edits. The article attracts an average of 1,000 views a month, and appears to have had only one piece of vandalism in its history. SilkTork *^YES! 10:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images. File:MDHB advert (Port of Liverpool).jpg is detailed as Mersey Docks and Harbour Board being the author, and with a copyright tag saying that the image has passed into the public domain because the author died over 70 years ago - yet Mersey Docks and Harbour Board still exists. The image is anyway redundant, as it adds nothing substantial to the article that is not already given by File:Port of Liverpool Building.jpg, and it clutters the article against MoS guidance given in MOS:IMAGES. The captions are sometimes too long - see guidance in WP:CAP. I suggest removing File:Port of Liverpool Building 1.jpg and File:MDHB advert (Port of Liverpool).jpg. I have adjusted the caption for File:Port of Liverpool Building.jpg. SilkTork *^YES! 10:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted the images. Images are now GA compliant. SilkTork *^YES! 10:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

This is a readable and interesting article. I have tidied up the minor issues, and it now appears to meet GA criteria. Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 12:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Port of Liverpool Building. 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) 23:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Port of Liverpool Building. 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) 10:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter/

[1]