Talk:Lyme Park/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I shall be reviewing this article (I've visited Lyme Park many, many times myself, so I look forward to reading this and perhaps finding out something new!) – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• "It consists of a mansion house surrounded by formal gardens, standing in a deer park" Do gardens stand?
  • Figure of speech: WP would probably consider it redundant; "standing" deleted.
• Is it on the edge of the Peak District? Wow, I didn't realise it was so close!
  • Good point. I've checked the OS map, and it's IN the Peak District National Park. Text amended + ref.
• "The estate was granted to Sir Thomas Danyers in 1346" By whom?
  • Edward II as it says in the History section. I don't think this detail needs to be repeated in the lead. Do you?
• "Formal gardens were created and developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries" Again, who did?
  • Again this information is in the History and Gardens sections.
• How about a mention more recent aspects of Lyme in the lead, such as TV appearances?
  • Done
• "granted his family a coat of arms in 1397" Is a picture of the arms available?
  • I am not aware of one which is copyright-free.
• "However, Piers was executed two years later by Henry Bolingbroke" Why was that?
  • Because he was a friend of his rival Richard II. I have added a few words which I hope clarify that.
• "Later in the century William Legh, 1st Baron Newton, added stables" Which century?
  • 19th. It follows the alterations made by Wyatt the dates of which are three lines above.
• The measurements of the house are confusing. What exactly do they represent?
  • "Overall" added
• More pictures to compliment the exterior description would be nice.
  • Agreed - and there is room. But I cannot find any more suitable free-use images. There is nothing in Commons or Geograph which adds anything of value in this respect.
    • Have you tried looking on flickr? Not that images are essential, but it's so easy to get pictures of the exterior, I'm surprised there's not that many around. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I've flicked trhough a few hundred images on Flickr and found nothing (yet) which adds to what is already in the article and which is free to use.

Interior section:

• You discuss various rooms, but don't really go into their history much. Example, when was the entrance hall built, was it always the entrance hall? You only really discuss it after its remodelling.
  • I don't have any more information on this.
• "Portraits of Edward III and the Black Prince decorate the hall." They aren't the only ones, if I recall. Any more detail about the paintings? (That they're copies, for example).
  • This is interesting. Waterson does not say anything about a portrait of Edward III; that came from the UK Heritage site (which I hope is a reliable source). In respect of the Black Prince, Waterson says "UNKNOWN, (?) 17th century.....Said to have been bought from St. James's Palace in the early 18th century....." Waterson also describes the presence of paintings of Peter Legh (X) and his wife Frances. (pp. 13–14) One of the problems of working from an oldish (1975) source is that paintings come and go and get moved. So I decided to stick just with the two portraits mentioned as they come from a 2008 source.
• "They were originally in the Legh's London home" What London home?
  • In Belgrave Square (Waterson, p. 12.). Does including this add any value to an article on a Cheshire house?
    • It would help just to link to it. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Done
• What's a tabernacle?
  • I presume it was a niche or a cabinet for storing the Eucharist so I have linked it to Church tabernacle. If this is felt to be confusing or inadequate, perhaps it could just be deleted.
• Are room names normally capitalised?
  • They are capitalised throughout Waterson, so I assumed this was a convention. It certainly presents confusion in situations between, say, "the room was used as a drawing room" and "they had tea in the Drawing Room".
• "To the north of the Entrance Hall, on the first floor" We're still on the first floor, aren't we? No need to mention again. And while I remember, a basic floorplan would be nice.
  • I'm not sure. The steps from the courtyard lead to a door which is between the first and second storeys (see text) and this is confirmed by the image in this section. Looking at the floorplans in Waterson (p. 4) there are steps (? up) from the Entrance Hall to the Drawing Room, etc. So I think what is said is actually correct. A floor plan would of course help to clarify this but I do not have the expertise to create one (and the one in Waterson is under copyright).
    • Yes there are steps; have you ever visited? The entrance hall is slightly lower down than the rest, and there are a few steps going up. This doesn't mean it's an upper-floor though. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I have visited, once, decades ago. Any memories of the details have merged into memories of many other stately homes, palaces, etc. visited since. Reference to the first floor in this context deleted.
• Surely there are more important rooms that could be discussed?
  • There well might be, and more rooms may have been opened to the public since 1975, but I do not have any information about them. The only rooms described in Waterson which I have not included are the Morning Room and the Yellow Bedroom, about which it is difficult to pick out anything particularly notable.
• "To the west of the house is the former mill pond." What do you mean by "former"? How can something be formerly a pond?
  • Now it is a pond. Formerly it was a millpond, but the mill has gone, which I think makes it a former millpond. I suspect confusion has been caused by splitting millpond into two words. In the original version it was one word but it was split by an editor into two words, I think, to avoid a re-direct (was that really necessary?). The Wikipedia article uses two words, but I would argue that it should properly be one; this is confirmed by Chambers English Dictionary and Wiktionary. [Perhaps the WP article should be moved from Mill pond to Millpond!]

Saving at this point, keyboard issues. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. All the above points have been addressed. I hope this article is going to be reviewed according to the six Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Of these, most of the above comments have been, I think, under criterion 3 - "Broad in its coverage". It is not meant to be comprehensive; that would be for the article at the FA stage. I think its coverage is broad enough for GA, addresses the main topics, and is focused without unnecessary detail (otherwise I would not have submitted it). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm certain this won't fail. I do this for every GA I review - just go through it and try to give it a fair review at the same time. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• "The most obvious structure in the park is a tower" How do you mean, obvious? To whom? Surely the most obvious structure is the house?
  • Dealt with.

Completed review. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think all the points raised have now been covered. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, excellent work. I think this now meets all criteria, so it's now a Good Article. Well done! – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the trouble you have taken over this. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)