Template:Did you know nominations/Council architect
- 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) 06:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Council architect
[edit]- ... that in 2015 there were only 237 council architects in England? Source: Graph in Architect's Journal article)
- ALT1:... that Hampshire County Architects is the largest council architect department in the United Kingdom? Source: Graph in Architect's Journal article)
- ALT2:... that in 1953 the London County Council council architects department employed more than 1,500 people?Source:Achitect's Journal article "the London County Council architects department boasted more than 1,500 staff in 1953"
- ALT3:... that in 2015 the London Borough of Croydon became one of the few British local authorities to reintroduce the role of council architect? Source:Architect's Journal article
Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 21:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC).
- In the process of reviewing this and checking the possible hooks. Mélencron (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The article was created within the past 7 days (new article, moved from sandbox to mainspace on 15 January), contains 2241 characters of readable prose, and appears to be mostly appropriately cited. QPQ was completed (though the nominated article wasn't bolded, which I presume was an omission by the nominator). I'd note that the lede section contains some content not mentioned in the body text or directly substantiated by the two given sources: in particular, the claim that "name of the position varies depending on the type of local authority and is similar to that of county surveyor or chief engineer used by some authorities" needs to be cited or changed. Otherwise, the given references are sufficient.- The main hook is appropriately cited (14+27+36+10+22+55+36+21+16 = 237; fine per WP:CALC). ALT1 did not initially appear to be correctly cited within the article, but I've now fixed that. ALT2 is appropriately cited (removed the unnecessary apostrophe), as is ALT3 (though I've fixed what was presumably a mistake in the hook, which referred to Camden as opposed to Croydon).
- The reference issue in the lede isn't a major issue as it isn't used in any of the hooks; I'll mark this nomination as good to go once it's addressed. Mélencron (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Mélencron, thanks for the review. Well spotted on the QPQ review, I have just fixed the bolding. I'll get some refs added for the use of different names for the position as soon as I can, tomorrow probably - Dumelow (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
