Talk:Swiss Cottage Library

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Swiss Cottage Library/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 15:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links

Prose

Lede

• Cottage Library is the central library of the public library service - can we say this without saying library three times? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done, changed but still a bit... meh

• What even is a "central library"? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done changed to primary library

• Notably, the building shows... - if you have to say something is notable, it's probably not notable. Just say "the building shows...". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done

• Are swimming baths the same as swimming pools? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

In essence, yes, but sources exclusively refer to them as "baths": I've wikilinked swimming baths now so hopefully that helps.

General

• library, Kilburn Library, was opened in 1894, but was soon succeeded in 1897 by the borough's first central library: Finchley Road Library - same issue as lede. Continuous overuse of "library" and what is a central library? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done

• In 1989 Camden reported that the swimming baths - this is the first use of the word baths outside of the lede - how would you know these existed? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I've amended "sports centre" earlier on to swimming baths to be more appropriate, though in the whole the difference is a bit confusing, I've made an attempt to clarify it in brackets.

• original masterplan - is this a quote or something? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep, apologies,  changed

• The construction section seems quite small - I feel it would be better served being merged with some of the other info. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I've merged this upwards

• The overall centre redevelopment plan, including the demolition of Swiss Cottage Sports Centre and construction of Swiss Cottage Leisure Centre, designed by Sir Terry Farrell, was finished in 2007 at a cost of £85 million.[9]
  Whilst the accompanying sport centre's demolition was not controversial, it removed the library's complimenting twin, which was factored into new designs. - so what I read about this is that they took down the sports center, and made a new one somewhere else? I feel that could be made a bit more explicit. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right, it was built on the site of the old demolished swimming baths and I've clarified that.

• both locals and at a more national level.[ - "both locally and nationally". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, thanks a lot for taking this on, I'll have a look at reviewing one of the articles you've linked above. A lot of these sources are purely offline and I've made scans of some of them, so if you want a specific source I can send a scan if I have it. – Isochrone (T) 13:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Nah, that's fine. As it's a spot check I'll just check some online ones 2,19 and 35 all came up fine, so I'm happy to pass. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Schwede66 talk 08:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Swiss Cottage Library in London

• ... that disputes in the acclaimed refurbishment of Swiss Cottage Library (pictured) prompted the library's operators to sue its developers? Source: McAslan sued over library, Building Design
  • ALT1: ... that despite being called one of Camden's "ugliest" buildings, Swiss Cottage Library's (pictured) demolition was controversially prevented by English Heritage? Source: "Camden eyesore set to gain list status". Ham & High, full quote: "calling the pair the 'ugliest buildings in the borough'"
    • ALT1a: ... that despite being called one of Camden's "ugliest" buildings, the demolition of Swiss Cottage Library (pictured) was controversially prevented by English Heritage?
  • ALT2: ... that Swiss Cottage Library (pictured) was acclaimed by Elizabeth II on opening as "really wonderful"? Source: "The Queen's Comment: It's Wonderful: Royal opening of new baths and library". Hampstead & Highgate Express.
  • ALT3: ... that Swiss Cottage Library's (pictured) architect described its future as "in the lap of the Gods" following reorganisations in local government? Source: "The Queen's Comment: It's Wonderful: Royal opening of new baths and library". Hampstead & Highgate Express
    • ALT3a: ... that the architect of Swiss Cottage Library (pictured) described its future as "in the lap of the Gods" following reorganisations in local government?
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Still working on hooks, I'd be grateful for any suggestions.

Improved to Good Article status by Isochrone (talk). Self-nominated at 15:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Swiss Cottage Library; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Isochrone (talk · contribs), I will start a review shortly, four hooks is plenty, unless you find something better than the previous ones. TSventon (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best-- I'm still pretty new to this – Isochrone (T) 20:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Isochrone (talk · contribs), I have read the article and checked the online sources. As you note , you have used a lot of offline sources, could you send me scans of the ones that support the hooks, if you have them? I have some minor comments and questions:

• 1. "British government had prioritised housing and education, resulting in archaic building regulations remaining unamended" sounds odd, do you have a quote or scan of the source?
• 2. "English Heritage's decision ... was controversial both locally and nationally" is not supported by Standard reference, as far as I can see.
• 3. "fins" made from Portland stone" - should mention they are concrete.
• 4. I don't like "Swiss Cottage Library's (pictured)", could you provide Alt1a and Alt3a using "of Swiss Cottage Library (pictured)" then the promoter can choose what they prefer. TSventon (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

TSventon, thanks:

• the first one is mainly from the historical background section of the online Historic England PDF, and the latter is from an offline source I can send
• You're right, this is a bit of synth I wrote a while back and didn't notice, I've amended it to better reflect the sources
• I'm confused what you mean here... is it incorrect? Looking at the relevant source it mentions portland stone?
• I've tried doing that
• As for the other sources, unfortunately the Ham & High is the only thing I wasn't thing I wasn't allowed to take photos of. I can send you my page by page notes, if that helps? If you really, really need it I might be able to go to the archives but I cannot guarantee how long that will take. I'll send the material I have scans of for now. – Isochrone (T) 11:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Isochrone, thank you for your responses, I will strike bullets as they are dealt with.

• "fins" made from Portland stone" suggests that the fins are made from stone rather than concrete, but according to the English Heritage listing the fins are made from "Portland stone aggregate", which I understand is concrete. I did not change this myself as I can't access the offline source.
• I want to make reasonable steps to check sources before assuming good faith, but don't think it's necessary to make a special journey to the library. I have received an email notification and will check my email shortly. TSventon (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes apologies, the linked source also mentioned aggregate and I was bit confused what it meant: from what I understand it could be a mix of any two materials, so I might just add aggregate instead of concrete, as I can't find a source specifically mentioning that. – Isochrone (T) 12:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

"Portland stone aggregate" is fine, Black 2017 mentions both fins "in Portland stone aggregate" and "concrete fins" on p 176. I don't think you sent me Black 2014, Black 2017 doesn't mention building regulations. By the way

• 5. Is Swiss Cottage still the main library in Camden? I don't think that is cited. I am surprised that central library was an issue, the Cambridge Dictionary explains it as a library which is central. TSventon (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

TSventon so I've had a look at other sources and it seems its title as "Central Library" was amended in 2014, though it remains the administrative headquarter and the library with the largest capacity (the other main library is Holborn Library). I think I'll err on the side of caution and remove the primary/central bit: I agree I thought it made sense, but perhaps some readers don't understand it, as in the case with the GA reviewer. – Isochrone (T) 21:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Isochrone, I think Hampstead Central Library and Swiss Cottage Central Library should stay as names, you could remove central/ primary/ main as a description. I don't think it is important enough to reopen the discussion with the GA reviewer. TSventon (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. – Isochrone (T) 23:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Isochrone, thank you, I think my only outstanding question is do you have a scan of Black (2014) "The design of Swiss Cottage Library"? TSventon (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

TSventon my apologies, I can get that to you in a bit. – Isochrone (T) 19:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Sent – Isochrone (T) 20:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Isochrone my turn to apologise for the delay. I have read Black (2014) and it is talking about restrictions on building, not building regulations, so I have amended the text. TSventon (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Isochrone I was impressed by the photos , which are suitably licensed and can assume good faith on offline references. On reflection I prefer ALT0 as it is sourced online. Could you change widely acclaimed to acclaimed, per the source. ALT2 is not surprising as the Queen was probably expected to say nice things about buildings she opened and ALT 1 and ALT3 have offline sources. Second nomination, so QPQ not needed. TSventon (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

TSventon, I was leaning towards alt0 as well and I'm very thankful for your thorough review. I appreciate your words about my photos, I was quite happy with how they turned out :) Thanks once again. – Isochrone (T) 09:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually a little note, is it worth wikilinking operators/developers? I know DYK doesn't love piped links so I'm unsure – Isochrone (T) 09:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Isochrone review follows. I wouldn't wikilink operators/developers, a promoter might want to add in North London, but I will leave it for now.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - n/a
Overall: See comments at 02:06, 4 September 2023. TSventon (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Question

Isochrone, do you have a reference for Camden originally planned to demolish the library with Swiss Cottage Sports Centre, I can't find it on Harwood p 496-8 or the listing. TSventon (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@TSventon sorry, this should been sourced to the RIBAJ, which is also where I got the quote that "demolition would have been a mistake".  Fixed – Isochrone (T) 09:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Refurbishment cost

The text says that the refurbishment cost £7.9 million in 2003 "equivalent to £184.3 million in 2019". This sounds pretty unlikely. Inflation in the UK has been bad but this is an increase of over 20 times in 16 years. There's no reference for the number so it's not possible to check where it came from. The Bank of England inflation calculator gives £11.28 in 2019 for £7.9 in 2003 so it seems at the very least the decimal point might be in the wrong place. 212.159.76.165 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, thank you for spotting this. I have corrected the inflation calculation, where the year had been entered as 1956 rather than 2003. TSventon (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)