Template:Did you know nominations/North West Cambridge Development

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

North West Cambridge Development

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Fata Morgana tea house at North West Cambridge Development, Cambridge

• ... that Cambridge University's new North West Cambridge Development has a tea house with see-through floor, walls and furniture?
  • ALT1:... that Cambridge University's new North West Cambridge Development has a toroidal school building?
  • ALT1a:... that Cambridge University's new North West Cambridge Development has a school building shaped like a Polo mint?
  • ALT2:... that Cambridge University's new North West Cambridge Development centre is named after the astrophysicist who shot the famous photograph that helped verify Einstein's general theory of relativity?

Created by Cmglee (talk). Self-nominated at 13:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC).

• Can you put the sources in the hook, please? Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

: seconded the above request, moreover, I like ALT0, but what is in the article is slightly different from what is in the hook: "The Fata Morgana tea house sits on the western bank of Brook Leys lake. The two-storey pavilion was made from undulating stainless steel welded grating by German artists Wolfgang Winter and Berthold Hörbelt. Depending on light conditions, its polished surfaces can appear shiny or almost see-through." you should align hook and article. Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Thanks, Daniel and Elisa. Done. Is that better? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 21:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

yes, now is fine, approving hook ALT0. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• The review does not cite any of the standard DYK article checks against the criteria: size, timeliness, neutrality, sourcing, lack of close paraphrasing, etc. These need to be included in any DYK review. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• New, long enough, in time, sourced, neutral, no apparent copyvios. Cmglee, has there been any movement in the proposal to merge the article? Also, the hook facts need to be in the article. Currently there's nothing about see-through furniture, about Eddington taking an eclipse photograph, or about a toroidal building. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done for the last two. Thanks, Usernameunique. The steel mesh benches are self-evident from the photograph I linked, but if that's insufficient, I can make do with the other two hooks. I haven't had opportunity to merge the articles and would appreciate anyone having a go at it. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: If your concerns have been met, could you give this a tick of approval? Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth, this cannot be given a tick or promoted while the article has a merge tag on it. It sounds like cmglee thinks they should be merged, and if that's the case, there clearly should not be a promotion until they are merged and the resulting article rechecked. If that isn't the case, there has been no discussion of the merger proposal, and the IP hasn't edited since making the proposal, so if nothing more happens in the next few days, the month will be up and the proposal can probably be removed, depending on the merits of the proposal. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Hello BlueMoonset, I've merged in info from Eddington, Cambridge and removed the merge note. Is it OK now? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 16:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Are you happy with the merged article? If so, please could you give this nomination a tick so that it can be promoted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Cmglee, merge is resolved, but there are a few minor issues with the article, and with the hooks. The article needs a few citations, which I have indicated with {{cn}} tags. Issues with the hooks:

ALT0: The hook ("see-through") doesn't align with the article ("almost see-through"). I don't think you need the "almost" in the article; "see-through" doesn't necessarily mean invisible, or that one's sight is completely unobstructed. Is there a reason for linking to that photograph, by the way?

ALT1: Where in https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2015/mar/17/design-primary-school-learning-no-limits the source] is it stated that the building is toroidal?

ALT2: First, the hook says that the photograph verified Einstein's general theory relativity, while the article treats the photograph, and the verification, as separate ("to photograph the solar eclipse of May 29, 1919 and verify Einstein's General Theory of Relativity"). Second, the article speaks of a photography trip, essentially, but not one particular famous photograph. Even the Solar eclipse of May 29, 1919 article, though it includes the photograph you are probably speaking of, says nothing about it.

These are all solvable issues, but need to be addressed before going forward. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Usernameunique, I've resolved one cn. The others were from Eddington, Cambridge. I don't have references for them and am fine with removing the lines which they pertain to.

ALT0: Done. I feel showing readers its see-throughness is more instructive than telling them.

ALT1: "Barfield literally kept the circle, opting to design a Polo mint shaped school around a circular courtyard, ..." Don't tell me I need a ref that a Polo mint is toroidal!

ALT2: Fair enough. I don't know how to word it more succintly yet make it appealing. I'm fine removing ALT2 if the wording is unsuitable.

Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks cmglee. ALT0 and ALT1 are okay, striking ALT2. Didn't notice the mention of the polo mint, though I would link "toroidal" in the article (and maybe the hook, but up to you). Re: citations, this source looks like it can back up the first two cn tags, and this source for the third one. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the citations, Usernameunique. I've resolved the issues you highlighted. Come to think of it, using the phrase "Polo mint" as in the citation sounds even better, so I added ALT1a. How does that sound? Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good cmglee, thanks for adding the citations. ALT1a is great, striking the others. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That's really fast response – thanks, Usernameunique. Looking forward to seeing it on DYK! cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)