Template:Did you know nominations/Bowdoin station

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 Yoninah (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Bowdoin station

The entrance to Bowdoin station
The entrance to Bowdoin station

Improved to Good Article status by Pi.1415926535 (talk). Self-nominated at 09:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The image does not appear in the article, which makes it ineligible for DYK, Template:Ping, you can add it if you wish. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done Swapped the image into the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The image can now be used as it is present in the article and suitably licensed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but footnote 4 does not adequately verify this sentence: Template:Tq There is nothing in the source about brutalist architecture or the chapel never being built. The hook fact, that the entrance was designed to match the chapel, is not mentioned or sourced in the article. Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
You can always omit the "never-built" from the hook if you want, or replace it with "planned", but I don't see any other problems with the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Fine. But the sentence in the article needs better verification. Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Template:Ping I've added a citation for the chapel never being built, and removed "brutalist" as it's not entirely clear whether this is brutalism or closely-related modernism. I've also adjusted the hook to reflect that the headhouse was designed as part of the chapel project, not necessarily to match it. I believe this addresses the issues raised. I'm still waiting on some requested offline sources to clarify the architectural style and so on, but hopefully this is sufficient for now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you. Restoring tick per Cwmhiraeth's review. Yoninah (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)