Talk:Architecture of Leeds

Architecture of Leeds was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 5, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
May 30, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
April 7, 2025	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Architecture of Leeds is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Leeds

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Leeds, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Leeds 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.LeedsWikipedia:WikiProject LeedsTemplate:WikiProject LeedsLeeds

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

St Pauls House

I can't see any mention of St Pauls House which is a Grade II* listed building. I've knocked together a separate article on this see St Pauls House, Leeds. I think there should be a link to my article EricPolymath (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds International Pool

The paragraph on Leeds International Pool is misleading, it states that "the pool was less than an inch too small for Olympic standard", this is well-known as a myth in Leeds, and a quick google will reveal that the pool was never intended to be Olympic size (there were no plans for an Olympic bid in Britain at the time), and the pool was in-fact "International size" - hence its name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.25.37 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Architecture of Leeds/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The page has been judged by people outside of the project to be of 'Good Article' Standard, therefore I think it is justifiable for it to be so in the Yorkshire Project. Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 08:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to several uncited statements, including entire pargaraphs. Is anyone interested in addressing this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Architecture of Leeds

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.