Template:Did you know nominations/The Crescent (Birmingham)

The Crescent (Birmingham)
Created by Pigsonthewing (talk). Self nominated at 19:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC).
 * ... that The Crescent (pictured) in Birmingham was started, but never finished?
 * Reviewed: Choose Your Battles


 * Alternative image: The Crescent, Birmingham.jpg


 * The third reference is without page number. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Article is long enough, new enough and devoid of copyvios. QPQ has been done. The hook is short enough but it's misleading - they finished the job by demolishing it in the mid-to-late 1960s. Please fix that, fix Leszek Jańczuk's comment and do something about reference #2 - a page number from an A-Z or a link to Google Maps showing it would be vastly preferable.-- Laun  chba  ller  14:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the Crescent was demolished though unfinished. Ref 2: see image on the page. Ref 3 was taken on good faith from information provided by another editor. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Exactly. They left it half finished and then finished it by demolishing it. Ref 2 I'm satisfied with but I'm not prepared to accept ref 3 without a page number.-- Laun  chba  ller  17:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the last paragraph needs a reference.-- Laun  chba  ller  09:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think ref 3 was taken from the article Birmingham and Fazeley Canal, and is only being used to verify the canal's completion date. If that's the case, the citation isn't necessary, and probably inappropriate per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT: "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself". Anyway, I just stopped by to propose a more interesting hook.
 * ALT1: ... that The Crescent (pictured) in Birmingham stood unfinished for over 150 years before it was demolished?
 * — DoctorKubla (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've dropped Andy a note, just in case he missed Launchballer's comments. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He certainly didn't miss the first comments! I agree; ALT1 is much more interesting.-- Laun  chba  ller  16:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of the article is still lacking a reference citation. --Orlady (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I added one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikia is freely editable and thus not a reliable source.-- Laun  chba  ller  10:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the fact that today's Crescent Tower stands on the property. Is there doubt? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - Wikia is not a reliable source for anything!-- Laun  chba  ller  11:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood me. Is there doubt that the building is on the property? If yes, what would convince you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One of many pics, more images, list of streets --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A reliable source. I need it printed in black and white otherwise it's synthesis.-- Laun  chba  ller  13:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you won't believe a street address and an image, what do you think of dropping that line until after DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg It's not an ideal ref, but it's not the hook fact. I think we can live with it for DYK. Other aspects of the nom check out. ALT1 looks good. --Orlady (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want the line reinstated post-DYK I recommend you go to the library and find something offline for it.-- Laun  chba  ller  17:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I approved the hook before Launchballer removed the sentence. DYK rules do not require the entire article to supported by reliable sources -- only the hook needs to be reliably supported. I thought the information on what's on the site now was a worthwhile part of the article, and as Gerda notes, there's no particular reason to doubt the sources that were found. --Orlady (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The last time I checked, every paragraph requires at least one reference.-- Laun  chba  ller  21:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The rules require adequate references, with one per paragraph as a guideline. We do not generally insist that all references be to reliable sources, but the hook fact(s) must be reliably sourced. In this instance, the source is admittedly not reliable, but there is no reason to question its accuracy (due in part to the online maps that are consistent), so there isn't any harm in leaving the information in the article. --Orlady (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)