Talk:Golden Lane Estate

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

First creation
Needs pictures
Needs fact checking, most of the facts came from the Corporation of London. Really need to access a number of sources.
Created it, as there is a lengthy article on the Barbican, but no mention of this earlier work by the same architects. This is a charming estate, and deserves its listing.

Kbthompson 09:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need to cite sources, no original research

This has the potential to be a good article but critically it needs to comply with the Wikipedia:Citing sources policy. This is especially true of any statements of opinion: we have another policy (Wikipedia:No original research) that says editors must be very sparing with personal value judgements. You need to find a credible source that says what you want to say, cite it and quote from it. It clearly helps to have multiple sources but, if you have a single very credible source, then just that one is fine. As the article stands, there are far too many superlatives (which may well be justified, but editors may be the ones to make them). --Concrete Cowboy 23:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and I tried to meet that standard, on first creation. Just the facts. A lot of the recent additions seem plundered from the CorpLon listing document, without attribution. Others, are possibly what you would expect from a student (or academic) in architecture. I feel a powerful urge to do some editing ... but let's give Goldenlane - some kind of clue there? - the chance to get it on their own. They're obviously very knowledgeable about the estate. Kbthompson 00:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - as I said, it has the potential to be a Wikipedia:Good Article: the text is excellent (apart from the apparently subjective value judgements) and just needs a little more work. My comment was intended to prompt editors to back-fill the references, not to put anyone down. I deliberately didn't put the heavy handed banner tag across the top of the article.--Concrete Cowboy 13:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Could do with some better photos.FrFintonStack (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Golden Lane Estate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]