Talk:Tetterode

Tetterode was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 10, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture Low‑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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Typography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Squatting Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Squatting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of squatting 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Netherlands Netherlands portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

Review

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.

---

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tetterode/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 01:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Editør (talk · contribs) 21:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article content and the project banners on its talk page, it looks like the scope of this article is the building complex: its architecture, history, and occupants (first the original users, then squatters, and now legal tenants). I think the current content is a good beginning, but I also think that it is correctly assessed as C class, because it still lacks in important areas.

I believe the article has still too many issues to be resolved through this GAN review process within a reasonable amount of time, so unfortunately I am failing the nomination at this time.

To make the article ready for renomination in the future, I think that the structure should improved, here is a suggestion for that:

• History (new section)
  • Type foundry (new subsection, about the company history at this location and establishing the complex)
  • Occupation (expanding current Occupation section)
  • Legalization (expanding current Legalization section)
• Buildings (splitting current History section into four subsections, expanding on both the exterior and interior)
  • I: Bilderdijkstraat 163–167 (new subsection)
  • II: Da Costakade 158–164 (new subsection)
  • III: Bilderdijkstraat 157A–161 (new subsection)
  • IV: Da Costakade 148–156 (new subsection)
• References (like current one)
• Further reading (current Selected works section renamed and moved down per MOS:FOOTERS)
• External links (like current one)

Some other things to consider for improvement of the article:

• the article title may need to be changed to Tetterode Complex, because I believe Tetterode is a company name
• I believe the full name of the type foundry was "Lettergieterij Amsterdam v/h N. Tetterode" (Amsterdam Type Foundry formerly N. Tetterode), because this is how it is displayed on building II
• a type foundry (Dutch: lettergieterij) makes metal letters for printing machines which is not the same as a printer that uses printing machines to make paper publications; in this case, the type foundry may also have made publications, but this information should be based on a source
• there should be a good balance between the content about the 79 years of type foundry and the 44 years after that
• the timeline of the (groups of) squatters and tenants could probably be more clear; like who stayed, who left, who are there now
• an infobox such as {{Infobox building}} with the location would be useful here (see here for an example use for a building complex)
• addresses in the Netherlands are formatted by the street first followed by the house number and sometimes a suffix (e.g. Bilderdijkstraat 157A)
• no picture of building III is included in the article
• no pictures of the interior are included in the article
• the commons category could be added to External links
• the complex contains four rijksmonumenten (translation: state monuments), i.e. national heritage sites

Feel free to contact me if you have questions. – Editør (talk) 21:07, 10 July 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.

Hi Editør, thanks for the review, could you tell me on which of the six criteria you quickfailed per Wikipedia:GAFAIL? That would be helpful. In terms of focus, this article is intended to be about the squat actually, more than the buildings / architecture. I don't think there's enough information on each of the four buildings for a section each, let alone individual articles. I also pondered the name, but until other articles are created, there's no need to disambiguate this one and the common name for the squat/woonwerkpand is Tetterode. Best, Mujinga (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article in its current form fails GA criteria #3 and #4: this complex has such a rich history starting about 125 years ago and includes four national heritage sites, which doesn't really come across now as the article is biased towards the social history from 1981 onwards, having only three sentences about the building history, construction, architecture, and users until 1981. And I think that the part about the period from 1981 onwards could also be improved: given that a quarter focusses on a conflict between one tenant and the housing corporation and that the article itself already lists five publications about this period and none of them were referenced as sources. If your personal interest mainly lies with "the squat", maybe you can collaborate with other Wikipedians for the other parts of this article. To be able to improve it to a good article, I expect that you will need to use Dutch-language sources such as books and news articles; feel free to ask me or Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands for help with that. – Editør (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I think it probably isn't clear currently that the referenced publications are produced by the squatters themselves. I've already used up the secondary sources, English and Dutch. Mujinga (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could use publications by the squatters as source for the squatters' perspective, for direct quotes, and as a starting point for further research. I had already linked an additional secondary source in the review and I'm sure you could find many news articles through Delpher. Success! – Editør (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]