Talk:Durham police mast

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Durham police mast was designed to be slender to minimise the impact on views to Durham Cathedral? Source: "This one-off elegant design in reinforced concrete was a response to the sensitive site overlooking Durham Cathedral. Concrete enabled a slender mast to be built within the required wind tolerances, to avoid bending which would distort the narrow radio frequencies. The tripod base enabled the mast to be made still more slender while meeting this very precise brief." from: "County Police Communication Tower, City of Durham - 1350340". Historic England. Retrieved 21 November 2022. and "Officially the County Police Communications Tower, it was made of precast, reinforced concrete, allowing for a rigid, but slender structure that would not block views of Durham Cathedral." from:Conner, Rachel (15 February 2017). "Aykley Heads mast on the move to new police headquarters". Northern Echo.
  • ALT1: ... that a dismantled police communications mast in Durham, England, is protected as a listed building? Source: "County Police Communications Tower ... Heritage Category: Listed Building" from: "County Police Communication Tower, City of Durham - 1350340". Historic England. Retrieved 21 November 2022.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jarn Mound
  • Comment: Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any freely licensed photos of it as it's quite striking.

Created by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 09:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC).

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

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Dumelow: Good article. Personally I find alt1 to be a bit boring but find alt0 to be good enough for me to approve. Will have to AGF on the offline citations. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Utter garbage

This article makes almost little sense because whoever wrote it, wrote it for themselves and not for someone trying to understand the subject. Third sentence uses "urbated" which is even a word. It then doesn't make sense as the article lacks good clarity. Neither does it say where the mast was. Was it at the new site or the old one? This is what happens when it's just a copy paste job. Crap article. One the worst I have tried to read in a long time. 146.198.26.115 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If whoever wrote this crap actually knew where the tower was see here (during demolition), it would not have been such an arduous job trying to undertsanrd the article's facts in relation to the physical reality. 146.198.26.115 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your most constructive comments. If you looked at the edit history you'd see that "urbated" was recent vandalism which i have now fixed. The coordinates at the top of the page were the current location in storage, I've readded that later in the article. Not sure how you got confused about where the mast was, i think the article's fairly clear it was at the 1964 HQ - Dumelow (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)