Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noel Park


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:02, 24 March 2009.

Noel Park

 * Nominator(s): –  iride scent 

I deliberately left this one for four weeks after writing it to allow any dust to settle. It now seems to have settled into a stable version following my initial (re)writing and a subsequent copyedit by Malleus (the only recent edits since have been minor tweaks). I was originally planning to send it to GAC, but on reflection I think it meets all the FA criteria; it says all that any casual reader could ever want to know about the area and is fully sourced etc. Although it's not been through a formal process, it's been through a de facto peer review in that everyone I'm aware of who works on related articles has commented (thread currently on my talkpage here plus the article talkpage).

Pre-emptive replies to a few likely questions:
 * 1) The official local authority website is used as a source on a few occasions; however, only for facts where NPOV isn't an issue (number of pupils currently enrolled at the local school, for example);
 * 2) "Haringey Friends of Parks Forum" wouldn't ordinarily be a reliable source, but in the instance I'm using it it is; it's used solely as a citation for "As of January 2008, local residents were lobbying for the name to be changed back to Russell Park" and is a link to a statement on the matter by the residents group in question;
 * 3) The images don't follow the neat left-right-left-right progression recommended by the MOS – I think it's more important that the images be next to the sections they illustrate, and a strict alternation would result in some of them pushing the headers out of place;
 * 4) Three of the images (File:Noel Park and Wood Green, Earl of Dorset's Survey.jpg, File:Noel Park plans.jpg and File:Noel Park original designs.jpg) are uploaded at bandwidth-crunchingly large sizes; this is intentional. It doesn't affect how they display as thumbnails or the thumbnail download time, but these three images are the ones that it's most likely that any hypothetical kids-using-Wikipedia-for-their-school-project are likely to want to print out at a large scale, and I didn't want the loss of detail that resizing would entail. (As they illustrate precise architectural detail, I think it's important that they be viewable/printable at large scale).
 * 5) There's an issue (discussed at length on the article talk page, and also on Sandy's talk a couple of weeks ago) regarding the accuracy of the section on the Walsham-How Mission Hall (currently the second-to-last paragraph of section 9). The most reliable source on the subject (a book by the leading expert on the area, published by a museum specialising in the area's history) makes an assertion that appears to be flat-out contradicted by photographic evidence. The paragraph in question has been deliberately ambiguously worded to allow for either possibility to be correct; I'm very reluctant to remove mention of the hall altogether, as the Mission Hall would have been one of the most important buildings in a community of this nature in this period.
 * 6) While I've filled in some of the most glaring redlinks, there are still quite a lot of redlinks on this article. I think they're all "legitimate" redlinks, in that they're all for subjects on which we should have articles.

Oh, and I know there isn't the "notable residents" section one generally has in articles of this nature. Believe me, I looked (to the extent of walking the streets looking for Blue Plaques); despite a hundred years of history, I really can't find anyone notable who's ever lived there, other than Charles Christopher Watts, and he doesn't seem to me to have a significant enough link to the area to warrant mentioning. –  iride scent  14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tech. Comment -- Dabs/external links (checker tool), and ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS) are found up to speed.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   01:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - an excellent piece of social history with a great collection of supporting photographs and images. --DavidCane (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Text should not be hidden within the article ("Derivation of street names in Noel Park"); it doesn't mirror or print correctly. Can See alsos be merged into the article, per WP:LAYOUT?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the collapse box isn't ideal, but it's the best compromise I could think of. I think it's worthwhile having this list somewhere, firstly because it illustrates the mentality of the estate's planners (most notable to me is the fact that a fairly religiously-minded organisation was willing to name a street after Darwin at a point this early); secondly, realistically most readers of this article will be people who live and work in the area trying to find out more about it, to whom this list would be of interest (I know our guidelines say otherwise, but I think "it's useful" is a perfectly valid reason to include something). However, having it in the body text uncollapsed would be unsightly. A stand-alone List of streets in Noel Park would be AFD'd within minutes by one or other Defender Of The Wiki screeching "WP:NOT!!!", while AFAIK there's no provision in the MOS for an appendix section to an article, which would be the most obvious place for it. If it's the only serious problem, remove it. I've removed the "see also" section; Council house I've found a place for in the text, the other three I've removed altogether as they're not really necessary. – iride scent   21:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about this as a solution to the collapse-box problem? It removes the collapse, but takes the section in question to the end creating a de facto appendix, so there's not an unsightly table squatting in the middle of the article? – iride scent   21:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Support All my concerns have been addressed. Slight oppose
 * Location: "When construction began, the River Moselle, running parallel to Lordship Lane a short distance south of it, formed.." seems awkward to me. Not sure how to fix it though. The whole sentence is really long, perhaps break it into two and become a bit wordier? Not quite sure though.
 * &#x2713; Done – iride scent  21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "now-lifted" suggest explaining that to non-railfans. (My father was one, so I know what it means...)
 * I've replaced it with "defunct"; there's no need for a technical term here. – iride scent  21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Early History: No Domesday records?
 * None that I'm aware of. Bear in mind that even on the 1619 map, over 500 years after Domesday, there is only a single house shown in the entire Noel Park area (basically everything to the left of Green Lanes, the road running north-south down the center of the map). AFAIK the nearest settlement listed in Domesday was Tottenham, a couple of miles east; in the Saxon and Norman period, this area was still the old forest and marshy floodplain (hence Wood Green). Sources seem to agree that the earliest recorded property in the area was Ducketts Manor, built in 1254, as currently mentioned. – iride scent  21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to ask... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Construction: "Rowland Plumbe and Sir Richard Farrant, Deputy Chairman of the Artizans Company, visited the site to carry out an investigation to be told by Mr Hunt, the foreman, that "in answer to questions as to the mode of measurement in use for Ballast heaps, that one third was added to the measurement for shrinkage"." this sentence seems awkward and long to me. Suggest cutting it in half, and perhaps rewording the "... visited the site to carry out an investigation to be told by Mr Hunt..." part which is the awkward part
 * &#x2713; Done – iride scent  21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Need a citation on the quotation starting "a paper of measurements which were soon ..."
 * Fixed - that one just slipped through for some reason – iride scent  21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This phrase "... named for Charles Darwin, prominent naturalist and an early investor in the Artizans Company since 1871 who had died the previous year..." reads awkwardly. Suggest "... named for Charles Darwin, prominent naturalist and an early investor in the Artizans Company who had recently died..."
 * I've removed the "who had died the previous year" altogether as I don't think it's really relevant (if anyone disagrees, feel free to readd it) – iride scent  21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of spots that could use citations, but are borderline enough I'm not going to insist. (Last sentence of Piccadilly line, last sentences of the last paragraph of Construction).
 * I've added a ref to Piccadilly line section; the missing citation from Construction was an result of my moving the "Derivation…" table to the end and is now fixed. – iride scent  21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My main concern it the uncited quotations, that needs to be fixed before I can support. The others should be worked on, but I'm open to reasoning on exactly what that is. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed all of them; the only one without its own citation that I can see is the one in "Financial difficulties" beginning "to issue them from Green Lanes…", but that's because it shares a source with the ""no one living in Noel Park could desire…" quote immediately following, and I don't like adding citations to the middle of sentences unless it's absolutely necessary. Can you confirm that there aren't any outstanding which I've missed? – iride scent  21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 Few image concerns as follows: Hopefully, these should be easily cleared up. Jappalang (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Rowland Plumbe.jpg and File:Ernest Noel.jpg: UK copyrights are mainly based on the death of the holder. For these cases (published 1890 and 1883 respectively), it might be plausible that their authors might have died in 1940s, thus falling just short of the 70-year mark.  Since they are unknown (hence, taking the publishing before 1939 option), the PD-UK-unknown could be applied, but only "If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was."  For Plumbe, the research should be based on inquiries to Welch and the publishers of the Business News Building News.  For Noel, it would be inquiries to Dods to confirm if the photo belong to them (or the House of Commons) and the photographer.
 * File:Rowland Plumbe.jpg was verifiably published in 1898 and hence as far as I'm aware satisfies the "A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1939" ; since it was uncredited at the time of its publication there's no reasonable way to establish the creator. Regarding File:Ernest Noel.jpg, to be honest I'm not going to spend a large amount of time chasing copyright permissions for a 126-year-old photograph which is not necessary to the article. In both cases, if they're causing serious problems they can either be deleted (neither is essential) or transwikied from Commons to en-wiki; according to Durova, whose word on image-related matters I trust completely, verifiably pre-1923-publication images are automatically PD under the Florida law under which en-wiki (as opposed to Commons) operates and hence can be legitimately hosted and used as free-use on en-wiki. Since it's vanishingly unlikely that any other language project will want to use either image, it shouldn't cause problems if they are brought across. –  iride scent  20:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes to that. Durova Charge! 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with moving the two images to Wikipedia (which is only concerned with the US copyrights, hence the publishing before 1923 case). I would like to put up one question that might help them stay on Commons.  Is Business News Building News still in operation (in one form or another)?  If they went bust a significantly long time ago (and as you say, they did not state the photographer in their publications then), we can reasonably say that even Welch would not know of the creator and it is unlikely such records would be found in company registries (which I presume are only concerned with financial, hierarchy, and founding details).  Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Building News, not Business News. The short answer is, I don't know. I very strongly suspect it's long defunct, as a new magazine of that name was launched in 2002, and I assume that wouldn't have happened if there was an existing or recently defunct publication of the same name, but that is a presumption without actual evidence. It's an unsearchable title on Google, and the existing publication of the same name makes any ISSN or catalog queries suspect. –  iride scent 02:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think, in this case, moving the images over here would pretty much solve the issue without further consternation and worries. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Building News appears to have stopped publication around WWI; there is an archive at York University; this covers the period 1870-1920. It may be the collection stopped, but a quick google shows up no results after WWI. Kbthompson (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It goes further than that... According to this, "Building News (1854-1926): originally Freehold Land Times and Building News (1854-56) continued as Building News and Architectural Review (1860-962); then Building News and Engineering Journal (1863-1962) absorbed by Architect and Building News, 1926".  This is further backed up by this PDF of VictorianPeriodicals.com, which also states that the Architect and Building News was later changed to The Architect in 1971 and ended publication in 1980.  All in all, I think it is reasonable that with the convoluted transitions and long history, records of who actually took the photos are near-impossible to locate (if they ever existed).  I would key in my findings into the images on Commons to reflect this.  Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For Noel's picture, I suggest moving it to Wikipedia to resolve this (unless someone has already contacted Dods). Jappalang (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Morley Avenue 1906.jpg: creation does not equate to publication. This looks possible as a family shot (or private take), lining the kids up for a "Kodak" moment.  In which publication was it seen in 1906?
 * Removed. I think this is an ugly and almost unusuably low-resolution image anyway. (Almost certainly not a family snapshot but a publication from a church or school publication – Edwardian English slums were not the sort of place where people owned cameras – but I'm not going to go wading through musty files in municipal archives to look for attribution and doubt anyone else will.) –  iride scent  20:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Haringey wards with Noel Park highlighted.jpg: eh... where is the OTRS (or acknowledgement) from the Haringey Council for the base map to be GFDL? This could also be an SVG.
 * Hmmm, no idea. If you really insist, I can retrace the boundaries and reupload a file which will look exactly the same in every way; since this shows oficial geographical boundaries (which can't be copyrighted) and nothing else, the only artistic element is is the text and placement of the captions. I assume whoever uploaded the original saw no point in recreating something that already existed, but if you insist then I'll do so. Regarding SVG, I have no idea what the difference between SVG and any other file format is or what the advantages are, and would not have the slightest idea how to go about converting a file. If you think it needs would be an improvement and know how to convert them, feel free! –  iride scent  20:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Created an indisputably free use – since I just drew it myself in Paintbrush – version. – iride scent   21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made and added a vector graphics (.svg) version which will scale smoothly if scaled-up. --DavidCane (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You could handle the derivative works issue by redoing this based upon two or more sources. Durova Charge! 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The current version shouldn't have any issue as it's a drawn-from scratch straightforward depiction of the borough and area boundaries; as everyone who's shooed off a legal threat from Transport for London's over-eager legal department knows, copyright law doesn't cover a plain representation of geographical facts, which is what this is. – iride scent  00:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I am uncertain of that. One could argue that unlike hills and mountains, boundaries are readily set by man (the way how electoral districts can be redefined).  The current SVG is a tad too close to what the commission has decided as the burrough of Haringey.  Regardless, Durova's suggestion seems sound.  Would File:Noel Park locator.svg suffice (it is a rough outline based on two sources, both government)?  Sidenote: it is interesting to note that the BFI did not reproduce an exact copy of the OS map...  Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's certainly sufficient; it's purely to illustrate the rough location and rough shape. (Although I strongly disagree that there's any possibility that borders could ever be subject to copyright. If you want to get really pedantic, the boundaries of Haringey, as with the rest of England, are defined by statute – in this case the London Government Act 1963 ) – iride scent   02:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we agree that File:Noel Park locator.svg is suitable, I switched it in and struck this part. Jappalang (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Image concerns resolved. Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Image concerns resolved has been struck; are they resolved or not? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, the only potentially outstanding image issue is the status of File:Ernest Noel.jpg. Rather than have it hanging unresolved (I think it almost certainly is in the public domain, but can't prove it; it was demonstrably published pre-1939 but not clear when the photographer died, or whether copyright resided with the employee or the employer. I'm going to move it it en-wiki, where (per Durova above) it's indisputably PD under US law. –  iride scent  17:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now replaced with the en-wiki hosted image; I believe that's all image issues now resolved. – iride scent  17:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, all image issues for this article have been struck (sorry for noticing this late). Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - when few remaining image concerns are dealt with. A well written article on the history of the estate. I suggested a few structural changes to guide the reader - but these are not sufficient to detract from the quality of the article. Kbthompson (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note – I'm not ignoring your suggestion for restructuring. This revision shows what the current version would look like split into subheads; as you can see from the flip-flopping in the history, I'm torn about whether the "subheads" version is an improvement on the "single level" version; does anyone have any strong opinions either way? –  iride scent 16:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'll leave it to your discretion - but I prefer that version; it provides more guidelines for the reader by providing an overall structure to the article. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I say, I have no strong opinion either way; I'll leave it in the "subheads" format unless anyone raises a reason not to. – iride scent  16:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My support is not dependent on the structure - so, thanks ... Kbthompson (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.