Template:Did you know nominations/Gander Green Lane

Gander Green Lane, St. Anthony's Hospital, London

 * ... that Gander Green Lane contains West Sutton railway station and Borough Sports Ground and is punctuated at either end by a gym and St. Anthony's Hospital?

Created by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 22:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol delete vote.svg'Gander Green Lane' – I have been wondering why nobody has reviewed this article in over a month... The Article itself is long enough and created recently enough compared with its nomination date to satisfy the basic criteria. No copyright violations detected. However, I'm going to decline this as unencyclopaedic cruft. Nothing in the article indicates why the subject is notable. Yes, it exists, that seems to be about all. In fact, most of the text at the time of nomination is purely geographical. The hook is singularly uninteresting, and probably couldn't be less so. We haven't plunged the depths of listing every single retail outlet on the lane but it's getting there. I mean, who honestly cares that there's West Sutton railway station, a tinylittletinkers or Londis or Fitness4Less or North Cheam Academy of Dance or LibDems office on that lane – all of these are sourced to self-published sources. A "juicy tidbit" added after the nomination is about a spate of burglaries in the lane. If the lane is notable because of it, then most roads would qualify by the same logic. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 08:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you not noticed St. Anthony's Hospital, London? This hook contains two bolded articles.
 * ALT1: ... that St. Anthony's Hospital lies on the A24/Gander Green Lane junction?
 * Or if Gander Green Lane is that much of a mess (in which case AfD the bloody thing!):
 * ALT2: ... that the Vatican had to step in after the Daughters of the Cross attempted to sell off St. Anthony's Hospital? -- Laun  chba  ller  09:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An image might help a little. It really needs cleaning up. I noticed this: "The 413 bus goes straight through it,[18] while the S3 goes through a small part of it on its way to Langley Avenue from Tesco.[18]. it ... it ... its. And the same ref twice in a sentence? Tony   (talk)  08:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Amended repetition. What part of the lane do you think would be best to take the image of?-- Laun  chba  ller  09:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I will look at the hospital article in a few hours. As to the Gander Green Lane, I would simply redirect it to Borough Sports Ground, because that's what the term is best associated with. What do you think? --  Ohc  ¡digame! 10:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be opposed to that, because the lane contains two landmarks - Borough Sports Ground and West Sutton railway station. That is why I created this article. Therefore, a redirect would - in my opinion - be undue.-- Laun  chba  ller  13:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The lane itself seems to lack notability yet the strongest association is with the ground. The lane may have another landmark, but that is an independent subject that will not impinge on the lane's lack of notability, or its being a redirect to 'Borough Sports Ground'. In other words, when people say 'Gander Green Lane', they do not immediately associate with the hospital, so no ambiguity is created. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 15:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the station? The hospital is on the junction. Now, why can't I replace the contents of the article with the following:

Gander Green Lane is an alternative name for Borough Sports Ground. It is also the location for the following:
 * West Sutton railway station
 * St. Anthony's Hospital, London
 * Collingwood Recreation Ground

Collingwood Recreation Ground I had merged with this article, so it's a case of reverting my redirection. Or I can not touch it and it'll autoredirect to Borough Sports Ground.-- Laun  chba  ller  17:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg 'St. Anthony's Hospital, London' – The Article itself is long enough and created recently enough compared with its nomination date to satisfy the basic criteria. there are close paraphrasing concerns:
 * "erected a building of three storeys and 163 foot frontage" (article); "an imposing building of three storeys and 163 foot frontage" (source)
 * "st anthony's previously north cheam house was purchased by the daughters of the cross for £4625" (article); "cheam house stood in open countryside purchased by the daughters of the cross for £4625" (source)
 * "providing specialist medical and nursing care for those with cancer and other serious illnesses and support for the families of the afflicted" (article); "offering high quality specialist medical and nursing care for people with cancer and other serious illnesses as well as providing support for their families"
 * "loss of speech to catherine darley jones a high flying city analyst" (article); "christine darley jones was a high flying city analyst happily married to ex naval officer" (source)
 * In addition, the article is unclear as to the relationship, if any, between St Rafael's hospice and the hospital.
 * Both the hospice and the hospital are operated by the Daughters of the Cross. I have bolded the offending bits for my own reference.-- Laun  chba  ller  17:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But in what way is it relevant to the subject for the purposes of the article? As it stands, it appears to be a red herring in the article. The issue is critical as ALT2 depends on it. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 22:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg General QPQ not done, and not mentioned when nominating. Hook ALT2 is my preferred subject to clarification in the article about the relationship between the hospice and the hospital – the Vatican's involvement checks out against the source. ALT1 is just as boring and problematic as the first hook. Transport section needs to be removed – it's too tangential. and WP is not a travel guide. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 15:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I assumed you were watching this page, but here's a bump and notification. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 07:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My watchlist gets too cluttered for me to use. I have eMail settings on absolute maximum and the articles I don't want notifications for, I just don't 'view' the article. This one must have slipped through the net - thanks for the talk page notification. I've removed the prose for the Transport section and replaced it with brief bullet points - any good? Also stated that the Daughters of the Cross founded St. Raphael's as well.--  Laun  chba  ller  23:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Still no indication of a QPQ review. --Orlady (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * QPQ done.-- Laun  chba  ller  15:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Thanks for doing the QPQ; I also expanded the hospital article past 1500 characters, so this is ready for a proper review. Since Gander Green Lane was deleted at AFD, I've struck through the hooks for it. (I also did some reformatting of your statements here to use colons to create new indented lines instead of  , as I was having a devil of a time finding the hooks.) That leaves us with ALT2. The fact that people appealed to the Vatican to save the hospice is supported by sources, but I find factual issues with both the hook and the article. As currently written, the article indicates that the sisters wanted to sell the hospice, but the source indicates that they plan is (or was) to sell the hospital and not the hospice. (Maybe additional sources would clarify this, but as written the article contradicts the source.) The hook is consistent with the source, as it indicates that the plan is to sell of the hospital, but I can't support the wording that "the Vatican had to step in." There is no indication in the source that the Vatican has done anything, much less that it "had to" step in. Once the article tells a coherent story that is consistent with sourcing, I could support an alternative hook statement:
 * ALT3: ... that the Vatican was asked to step in to prevent the Daughters of the Cross from selling off St. Anthony's Hospital?
 * Holding off on the review for close paraphrasing until the needed revisions are made in the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the bit about the sale.-- Laun  chba  ller  18:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad to see the progress, but I must say I'm disappointed to see that the article has simply purloined the verb "escalate" from the source's headline and lead, rather than explaining what happened in more original (and specific) language.
 * Also, the article now says "In 2013, the Daughters of the Cross attempted to sell off the hospital," which strongly implies that they failed to do so, or were thwarted. However, the source states that the locals wrote "to the Vatican and senior archbishops in the UK asking them to withdraw their permission to sell St Anthony’s to a commercial organisation," which leads me to think that the plan had advanced beyond a mere "attempt." The source is dated in June 2013; has anything happened since then? --Orlady (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg  I've revised and expanded the article to resolve most of my concerns, and I even added myself to the credits as second "creator". I think the article is in reasonably good shape and that the ALT3 hook is good. This needs a new reviewer. --Orlady (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg I'm pleased to pass this article. It is much cleaned up and coherent than before. No copyright issues. I'm not sure ALT2 is strictly correct, as the Vatican has not yet reacted as at today. ALT3 seems to properly reflect what the sources say. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 12:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)