Talk:Daylit Gallery

Did you know nomination

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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Daylit Gallery

• ... that the Daylit Gallery (pictured) was once an outdoor utility area?

• Source: V&A Museum

• • ALT1: ... that an outdoor utility area in the V&A Museum was transformed into a popular gallery (pictured)? Source: V&A Museum
  • ALT2: ... that the Daylit Gallery (pictured) was the V&A Museum's first new-build addition in over 100 years? Source: Architect's Journal
  • ALT3: ... that first new-build addition to the V&A Museum in over 100 years (pictured) was once a utility area? Source: Architect's Journal; V&A Museum
  • ALT4: ... that a popular museum gallery (pictured) was once a liminal utility area? Source: V&A Museum
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jolly Super
  • Comment: If Jolly Super isn't good enough for a QPQ for some reason, I also did Template:Did you know nominations/Monuments (exhibition). Cheers,

Moved to mainspace by Cl3phact0 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 11 past nominations.

Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC).

• @Cl3phact0: For your information, Jolly Super is not a full review. Monuments is.--Launchballer 17:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  Got it, thanks! I had a hunch that might be the case. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Been nominated for about a month, full review still needed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Much to whinge about here I'm afraid @Cl3phact0:, though the article is long and new enough and Earwig's clean. Most hooks require knowledge of what 'liminal' and 'utility' mean, so I'd be looking towards ALT2, but even then it should be at least "V&A Museum". I am not happy with the sourcing on this article at all; of the 39 references, at least 20 of them are the V&A itself and that warrants {{independent sources}}. Suggest that those sources be removed.--Launchballer 00:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Don't mind the whinge. You're right about the syntax and abbreviation. In retrospect, ALT2 is probably the best of the lot anyhow. I need to get back into it re: your points about sourcing. Let me re-visit a few things and see what I can come up with. Give me a day or two please. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

PS: In a world full of Olympian whingers, yours doesn't even move the needle. If you'd said yeet it might've triggered me—all good! Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I'm looking at your comment about the sourcing and struggling to understand what it is that concerns you. The Victoria and Albert Museum is a NDPB, therefore I would think that it should be considered reliable (i.e., not {{3p}} worthy).

Additionally, the article's sources themselves are organised into sub-groups: "Official Site" for those that serve basic WP:N requirements (8 refs); "V&A Collections" for deeper context about the specific objects that are pictured in the article (7 refs); "V&A Digital Map" for links to the actual digital map of the museum—something that I thought enhanced our own work with WP:MAPS (4 refs, plus one external link); and one use of "V&A Blog" (a source text written by someone who was at the time a curator at the museum and is now apparently at the Smithsonian museum—so arguably not some smutty self-promo hit-job or similar non-RS rubbish). This organisational method seemed like a good way to differentiate between the types of V&A references used—lest they appear (superficially) to be the same source. I did look at other techniques of grouping references, but couldn't figure out a better way than what's actually in the article now (if there is a better way, I'd be glad to oblige).

The V&A is not a {{self-published source}}; nor is it a {{user-generated source}}; nor even a {{primary source}}—in all fairness, and with nothing but the deepest respect for you and your work here, you say "of the 39 references, at least 20 of them are the V&A itself and that warrants {{independent sources}}", but this is not that. It would be a mistake to add this article to the w:Category:Articles lacking reliable references—which is the purpose of that template.

Have you had time to review the sources themselves? Based on the observations above, I think you may be wrong on this one—but I am of course happy to discuss it in more detail and look for positive outcomes that satisfy your concerns and improve the article. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: For the reviewer who picks up this review where Lunchballer left off, the usage scenario I imagined when adding the "V&A Digital Map" references was a mobile user standing in the museum reading our article and saying "Oh, I'd like to go see that, but where is it?" We're simply giving them the ability to click our reference link and see exactly where in the museum the gallery is (the V&A is vast). This seemed like an enhancement, and therefore fairly obvious WP:1Q territory. I've used the technique in other articles (including the main V&A article itself) without anyone expressing concerns about reliability or neutrality (one editor simply doesn't like it—but wasn't really able to say why beyond "we're not a guide book", which given that our own robust mapping tools can pinpoint location very accurately, seems rather like a dead-end rational). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Noting that this was discussed briefly on my talk page. {{independent sources}} isn't necessarily a problem for reliability, but it is a problem for neutrality. I'm going to ask that another reviewer look at this to check I'm not being unreasonable.--Launchballer 15:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• ALT2 syntax revision per Launchballer. (Could also read "... that the Daylit Gallery (pictured) was the Victoria and Albert Museum's first new-build addition in over 100 years?") Either way okay by me. Also struck the other hooks for clarity. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer: The more I stare at it, the more I think we might want to spell out "Victoria and Albert Museum" in the ALT2 hook you've identified as the best of the lot. Any reason not to? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: You don't have to remove the V&A Museum completely as a source, but it would be better to include more independent secondary sources if possible and reduce reliance on what is essentially a primary source talking about itself. (See WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARY.) Overreliance on primary sources leads to non-neutral statements creeping in like this circulation hub provides continuity and adds previously lacking "equality of access" throughout this important and much visited zone of the V&A which is not appropriate in wikivoice. It also leads to inclusion of excessive detail; part of why secondary sources are helpful is that they help to filter and identify the most points that are most salient to outside observers. If it turns out there is not enough significant coverage in independent secondary sources, the article could get nominated for deletion or merging with the main article Victoria and Albert Museum. The Architects' Journal article doesn't qualify as an independent source, since it is a contributed article by two of the architects of the Daylit Gallery. The Rab McClure article in Architect found via the Wikipedia Library seems a bit better since it includes observations by McClure and facts ostensibly vetted by his editors, although it also quotes the MUMA architect team extensively as well. Have a look in Wikipedia Library, particularly Gale General OneFile and ProQuest, and also check Google Books and the Internet Archive for book sources that discuss the Daylit Gallery. You already have secondary sources cited in the article as well, so you may want to take a fresh look at those to see if you can mine them for facts and what it was that they found interesting about the Daylit Gallery. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Cielquiparle: Let me take a moment to review. Also, for what it's worth, I started Daylit Gallery, Prince Consort Gallery, and did significant work on Cast Courts because there are at least some of us who think the main V&A article has gotten too bloated (I've also done a bit of work there trying to streamline, tidy, and prepare it for another shot at WP:GA—much to do still ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). The idea is to strip out some of the content into stand-alone articles not merge more into the main article itself. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Added Rab McClure article in Architect Magazine per Cielquiparle above (well spotted—not sure how I missed that one). Also see "Refideas" on Talk, which lists a handful of other sources that may be pertinent to any detailed discussion about sourcing (either here or elsewhere). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not entirely sure that a DYK nom is the right place to be discussing best practice for sourcing (our guidelines state that DYK's main purpose is to showcase new and improved content, it is not expected that articles appearing on DYK would be considered among the best on Wikipedia), however, for the sake of comparison, our main V&A article has 270 sources of which: 53 are "V&A Official Site"; 16 are "V&A Collections", 14 are "V&A Digital Map", 6 are "V&A Images", and 4 are "V&A Blog" (I added some of these and helped categorise the rest—previously they were all over the shop, but still all from various "official" V&A urls). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@14GTR: Will you be re-establishing the previous categories when you are finished with your reworking of the main V&A article, or shall we strike the above comment? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

If by re-establishing the previous categories you mean am I going to restore the made-up names you applied to the work / website fields for references in the V&A article then no, I am not.14GTR (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, that's clear. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The proposed statement that this space was the V&A Museum's first new-build addition in over 100 years is just plain wrong. A upper gallery was built into the fashion gallery in 1962 and a new corridor gallery was built in the museum's then boiler house yard in 1983. Also various offices and store rooms were converted into exhibition space for the new British Galleries which opened in 2001. 14GTR (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@14GTR: Perhaps we don't understand the sense of "new-build" in the same way? An upper gallery [...] built into the fashion gallery or various offices and store rooms [...] converted does not meet the definition of new-build—these are alterations or renovations of existing spaces. New-build refers to the creation of new, enclosed volume. I believe that is what is being claimed, not that nothing new was built within the existing volume. What's clever about this particular addition is that the architects were able to add a significant new volume to the museum simply by enclosing an existing courtyard. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

All three of the examples I quoted meet any ones definition of new-build. Of course, you have not mentioned the boiler yard case which was exactly the same type of development as the new gallery.14GTR (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Our article simply states what the reference sources say. I have no inside knowledge or particular point of view. What is the goal of your intervention here? Would you like to remove the "new-build" claim (in spite of it being supported by the sources)? Do you think the article should not be promoted for DYK? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: Thanks for the fixes. The article is starting to look much better. Maybe propose some new ALT hooks? (Everyone is just trying to help you. If you monitor WP:ERRORS, you'll know that "first" hooks regularly come under intense scrutiny and that at least a handful of the thousands of readers of the article on the day will poke holes and complain if there is any doubt about accuracy. Problem hooks get pulled from the main page without completing their run and usually there are no second chances. Articles on the main page occasionally get nominated for deletion too. All this bulletproofing in advance is to help avoid these problems.) Anyway the next step is propose ALT hooks or withdraw the nomination if you're uncomfortable with all the scrutiny of the article at this time. You can always re-submit the article for DYK after the article passes GA. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: Thanks! I've gone ahead an un-struck the original hook proposals (I struck them out based on Lunchballer's learned and sage preference for ALT2—which made perfect sense to me too, even if our friend 14GTR doesn't seem to agree ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). Let's see if any of these might be the basis for a good ALT candidate, and in the meantime, I'll also give some thought to additional new angles. Re: your comment about the intense scrutiny of DYK, I'm not entirely new to this (I've had some successes and some failures too, alas), however, the overall risk of the article not surviving an eventual AfD seems like WP:SNOWBALL territory (it's not even vaguely a controversial topic and WP:RATER gives it a pretty solid "B"). I'll take the gamble. Poke away! Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I would say ALT2 and ALT3 are definitely out based on workshopping feedback; the "first in 100 years" claim is clearly not strong enough to withstand scrutiny on the main page and it's based on a single sentence with no supporting documentation about how this conclusion was reached. I think the idea behind ALT0, ALT1, and ALT4 has potential, even though the wording doesn't seem quite right in any of them. By the way, I really think the picture makes the hook even more confusing and uninteresting, because to someone who doesn't know the building, it looks like you're looking through an archway at an outdoor courtyard. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Daylit Gallery

Got it. Will cogitate. Re: the photo, you've put your finger (or perhaps I should say "eyes") on the crux of the matter! Apart from being an important gallery in an important museum, what is notable about this space is that it was an outdoor courtyard before the architects came up with what is a pretty damn brilliant idea for how to add "new-build" enclosed volume to what is a super-protected building in central London (without going through years of reviews, commissions, approvals, and other complexities). Quite clever, really. The hook could in fact read: "... that the V&A Museum's Daylit Gallery (pictured) was once an outdoor utility area?" (or perhaps "service area", per Lunchballer previous comment about the word "utility"). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

PS: We have loads of photos of the space on Commons, if you prefer (perhaps this one would work). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• ALT5: ... that the Victoria and Albert Museum's Daylit Gallery (pictured) was once an outdoor service area? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Daylit Gallery

• ALT5a: ... that the Victoria and Albert Museum's Daylit Gallery (pictured after sunset) was once an outdoor service area? Cielquiparle (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Nice. Spooky night at the Museum atmosphere. I like it! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

PS: There are so many to choose from! The Mike Peel photos are all very nice. The shot just next to the one you've chosen may be slightly preferable because it shows a bit of the "circulation hub" staircase and slightly more of the glass "hypersurface" roof—while still capturing the same atmosphere. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I substituted the other (similar) view in the article. Which do you prefer? I am indifferent, but leaning slightly in favour of the previous image (i.e., the one seen to the right here) because it now feels a little redundant showing the glass balustrade twice (contrary to what I wrote above). I recall that there's also a guideline that the DYK photo we display should be used be in the article too, so let me know which you prefer and I'll make sure that's the one used in the article. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: The nighttime one is better because there is more art visible, so it looks more like a gallery. The new one just looks like a lobby with stairs and a statue at the bottom. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm referring to these two images (substituted photo on the left; original on the right), not the daytime shot of the same area.

@Cielquiparle: Are we comparing the same two images? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

PS: I think I may have just improved the article rather handily based on our work here. Let me know if anything needs further clarification (I may not be seeing the forest through the trees at nearly over 300 edits to the article). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: The nighttime picture without the balustrade is better and will also show up more clearly if it were to be chosen as the featured thumbnail. So I think that should be updated in the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

 Implemented -- 11:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Approving ALT0 and ALT5 (and ALT5a though technically I proposed it as a variation). Striking the rest for reasons explained above, plus the "popular" hooks are non-neutral and would require additional substantiation in order to pass. Tone and sourcing of the article have been improved. As for the photographs, it's up to the promoter. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Cielquiparle: I think your proposed ALT5a is the best of the lot. The addition of wordplay between "Daylit" and "sunset" is clever and maketh the hook verily hook-y. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)