Talk:Lytes Cary

Article name

Surely this page should be called Lytes Cary, plain and simple? At the moment, Lytes Cary is a redirect to Charlton Mackrell, which page has a few lines about the settlement at Lytes Cary and Lytes Cary itself. It seems a nonsense that the settlement that post-dates the chapel and manor - which is the originator of the name - is under Lytes Cary. I suggest that the house and grounds go under Lytes Cary and the settlement is Lytes Cary (settlement) or Lytes Cary (hamlet), which will be a redirect to Charlton Mackrell anyhow. None of the sources I looked at call it Lytes Cary Manor - it's Lytes Cary, plain and simple. I don't know how to change all this though. Stronach (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done for all your editing on this article. Having checked a couple of sources I agree it is known as Lytes Cary not Lytes Cary Manor. This would involve "moving" the page to ensure the edit history & talk page move with it. I would suggest under the naming conventions the settlement should move to "Lytes Cary, Somerset" which would then be the redirect to Charlton Mackrell. I would suggest leaving it a couple of days to see if anyone objects and then I can do the move if needed. A few other resources which might be useful to expand the article include Lytes Cary at Somerset Historic Environment Record, Dovecote at IoE, Gate piers and walls at IoE, Lytes Cary at IoE, pair of gate piers at IoE and Outbuildings at IoE.— Rod ^talk 18:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your move suggestion sounds very good. I added the above refs to the external links section when I was doing my edits yeasterday, but didn't refer to them as I wasn't sure about reliability of various sources - for eg, the Nat Trust guidebook says the dovecote is a water tank built by the Jenners to ape the dovecote at Avebury MAnor, whihc the IoE page says it's poss C18. Either the Nat Trust is wrong (which seems unlikely) or the Jenners made a fake good enough to fool the Eng Heritage architectural experts. Stronach (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Added interior architecture info, but some sources do contradict so I have tried to tread the middle ground. I swapped the lead pic to one that shows the whole house, rather than the (albeit pretty) squashed oblique view one of the south front. Stronach (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been suggested that this article move to Lytes Cary however the target page is currently a redirect to Charlton Mackrell so can not be completed except by an admin. A way forward would be to move Lytes Cary to Lytes Cary, Somerset and then move Lytes Cary Manor to Lytes Cary with Lytes Cary Manor then redirecting.— Rod ^talk 18:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've expedited the move. Drop me a line if there are any problems. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK?

Just a thought - has this been expanded enough to qualify for DYK do you reckon? Stronach (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC). My page size tool says the page is currently (29 April 10.00ish):

   * File size: 68 kB
   * Prose size (including all HTML code): 14 kB
   * References (including all HTML code): 7469 B
   * Wiki text: 17 kB
   * Prose size (text only): 10 kB (1808 words) "readable prose size"
   * References (text only): 1088 B

& before your edits starting 28 April 14.39

   * File size: 60 kB
   * Prose size (including all HTML code): 3537 B
   * References (including all HTML code): 0 B
   * Prose size (text only): 2147 B (372 words) "readable prose size"
   * References (text only): 0 B

So it has gone from 372 words (2147 B) of readable prose to 1808 words (10kb) which is more than the required 5X expansion for DYK so why not propose it?— Rod ^talk 09:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Okeydoke. How about '... that in 1907 the medieval Great Hall of Lytes Cary manor house (pictured) was being used as a cider store?' Stronach (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no reference to support that statement so it would never get accepted at DYK.— Rod ^talk 11:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'll go through and add refs - its a bit sparse at the mo. Should have added them as I put in the text but the cite ref malarkey is such a fag I kind of left it ...Stronach (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What else is needed to get this article to GA?

What else do people think would be needed to get this article to meet the Good article criteria?— Rod ^talk 18:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 23:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: — Rod ^talk

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Cross-checked with other FAs: Chew Valley Lake, Chew Valley, Mendip Hills, Buildings and architecture of Bristol, Chew Stoke, Exmoor, Somerset, Bath, Somerset, River Parrett, Kennet and Avon Canal Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Cross-checked with other FAs: Chew Valley Lake, Chew Valley, Mendip Hills, Buildings and architecture of Bristol, Chew Stoke, Exmoor, Somerset, Bath, Somerset, River Parrett, Kennet and Avon Canal Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) (PD)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article. Can you provide inline citations for the following?

• "Only the older parts of the house are open to the public.".
• "The Jenners had a garden staff of four.".
• "The main border is 35 metres (114.8 ft) long and at its best in midsummer. The flowers grade from blues and yellows, through creams and apricots to pinks, mauves and reds. There is a restful White Garden beyond for contrast.".
• "It is a plain grassed walkway connecting the Raised Walk with the Pond Garden.".
• Is it possible to move inline citations in the Paintings subsection to the end of the sentences? They are inhibiting the flow.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Rod, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added and moved references as suggested.— Rod ^talk 18:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks --Seabuckthorn ♥ 21:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 21:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Inhabitanrs of Lytes Cary

A family of farmers lived at Lytes Cary between 1865 and 1903, headed by John and Lucy Eades and 8 children and two servants (from the censuses of 1871, 1881, 1891). John Eades died in 1903. In 1871 owned 218 acres with 3 labourers and 3 boys. Pietro69blue (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)