Template:Did you know nominations/London in the 1960s
- The following discussion 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: rejected by Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn from consideration by one of the article creators
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
London in the 1960s
[edit]
... that London in the 1960s was a centre for the worldwide youth culture, exemplified by the "Swinging London" subculture which made Carnaby Street (pictured in 1969) a household name of youth fashion around the world?
Created by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Nvvchar (talk), Rosiestep (talk), and Bonkers The Clown (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 15:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC).
-
The entire ref on Carnaby Street is missing a ref. PumpkinSky talk 01:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I fixed the spacing; it should be fine now. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hook is no good. (1) that Carnaby Street was a fashionable shopping area is not referenced in the article and (2) that is became a "household name of youth fashion around the world" is not in the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I fixed the spacing; it should be fine now. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- References have been fixed. The words "household" and "world" have been deleted in the lead and the following ALT1 Hook is suggested.--Nvvchar. 16:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that the West End of London in the 1960s (Carnaby Street pictured) thrived as a place of pop and boutique cultures?
ref is needed after "thrived as a place of pop culture and boutique culture came into vogue..." PumpkinSky talk 23:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- The last sentence in the last paragraph of the "Swinging London" section is also unsourced.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- References fixed as per above observations. Yes, original picture would be fine.--Nvvchar. 15:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Review needed to check the the ALT1 hook and recent changes in the article, notably the source citations. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Article now meets the DYK criteria and the ALT1 hook is appropriately referenced. I have struck out the original hook and removed the unwanted image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Concerns about verifiability (for example, "After the London docks..." etc is not supported by the given ref) and neutrality ("made the rest of the world envy the booming culture of London with romance and love taking the front seat"?). Article also needs a thorough copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed this pop up as it linked to Vauxhall Bridge, and have had to cut an entire section, in which literally not a single word was true. (The London Docks closed in 1969 not 1960, and in any event were only a tiny part of the Port of London which remains one of the busiest ports in Europe to this day; the docks were and are downstream of central London, so their closure would have had no significant impact on the environment within the city—what actually led to the clean-up of the Thames was the decline of heavy industry in the 1980s and a consequent decrease in industrial effluent; Vauxhall Bridge and Butler's Wharf are nowhere near each other and neither had or have any particular cultural significance; Bermondsey (the area around Butler's Wharf) in the 1960s was the crime-ridden heartland of the National Front and filled with heavy industries, whaling abbatoirs and steam-train marshalling yards, and walking through it would have been as far from "a pleasurable experience" as it's possible to be; that "the southern side of the river became a leisure spot" is an extremely dubious claim even today, and the only three things on the south side of the river which could conceivably be described as such are the Southbank Centre (opened 1951, expanded 1967), the cluster of tourist traps around Shakespeare's Globe (opened 1997) and the London Eye (opened 1999), none of which have any significance to the year 1960; the Canary Islands are off the coast of western Africa and decidedly not in the Thames, and there's no island of any kind in the Thames within the then-current boundaries of London and other than a couple of tiny specks like Eel Pie Island in the extreme west there are still no islands in even the post-1965 expanded boundaries—the only place with a remotely similar name on the Thames is Canary Wharf, but that didn't exist until the 1980s and is certainly not a tourist attraction. The whole section was "sourced" to a book on a completely unrelated topic—a primer for schoolkids starting Film Studies 101—which as far as I can see doesn't mention the Thames, let alone the redevelopment of London Docklands, which was in any case an initiative of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.) Since I've only checked the small part with which I'm familiar (civil engineering on the Thames), I have to assume there's a reasonable possibility of a similar level of hoaxing going on in the rest of the article. (If anyone seriously believes punks wore "sta-press trousers, the Crombie overcoat, and the pork-pie hat", something is seriously wrong somewhere.) This needs to be checked line-by-line before it gets anywhere near the main page, since major errors in a topic as widely covered as 1960s London are inexcusable. – iridescent 15:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)- —I seem to agree with everything in the post above. And even a few seconds' perusal throws up things on the surface that are easy to fix. The navbox at the top has removed hyphens from two article titles—why? MOSNUM says no apostrophe for decade abbreviations ('60s). Tony (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I am withdrawing this nom from further consideration. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)