Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Tower House/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

The Tower House edit

Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC), KJP1, Gareth E Kegg[reply]

This article is about a Grade I listed French Gothic Revival style turreted house in Kensington, London, which was built by William Burges, a master Victorian architect. Built between 1875 and 1881, it was the residence of Burges before his death, and he hosted numerous parties at the house. After a period of neglect in the 1960s, it was restored and was purchased in 1972 by Jimmy Page, who has owned it ever since. The house was a real labour of love for Burges and some of the intricate detail he put into it was a fine example of his prowess and talent, not only as an architect, but as a furniture maker and jewel craftsman. Page himself has commented that he's still finding new things in the design work even today, such is the attention to detail. This has been extensively researched by myself, KJP and Gareth and we believe we've written a highly comprehensive article on the subject which does it justice. After a very thorough peer review we feel this is now ready. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey edit

Not Done. Need help, Dr.
If you set them at default they'll be out of proportion. I think they're fine as they are.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But out of proportion for whom? What looks fine on your screen can look terrible (or better) on others'—one reason not to micromanage image sizes. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burges described the house as a "model residence of the thirteenth century" and the architectural historian J. Mordaunt Crook considered it to be "the most complete example of a medieval secular interior produced by the Gothic Revival and the last". More recently, James Stourton describes it as "the most singular of London houses, even including the Soane Museum".: This reads more like ad copy than an overview of the subject. I would expect a description of the house before this sort of thing, anyways.
I'm uncertain. I can certainly take some/all of them out but I think they are supported by the main text. As importantly, they try to explain why the house is so notable and more "singular" than Soane's is quite a claim. Shall we see what others think.
I said yesterday that I think it's best to avoid three quotes in the lede and somebody might pick up on it. I'll try to alter it now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain—it's not a matter of whether the text supports it, but whether it's helpful at this scope in orienting the reader to the subject. It seemed to me that a lot of text was getting in the way of getting to the point, which is describing what the house was. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the three distracting quotes have now been removed. I should have removed them myself earlier when the Dr. suggested it. Hope the lede works now. KJP1 (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping the lede is now acceptable to all. KJP1 (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More recently, James Stourton describes: how recent is "recently"?
Done.
  • Although he continued to finalise earlier projects, William Burges received no further major commissions after 1875.: this is so abrupt as to be disorienting. Who is Burges? what happened in 1875? "major commissions" refers to what? I realize some of these details are in the lead, but the lead is supposed to summarize the body—and these details are not in the body.
Done - I hope.
  • The house provided a suitable backdrop for his gregarious nature.; his beloved dogs: I wouldn't oppose over this, but I'm not sure this is encyclopaedic wording
Done and Done.
  • Does some of which refer to Dandie, Bogie and Pinkie specifically, or to his beloved dogs in general?
Done.
  • in the tomb he had designed for his mother: was he buried with his mother?
Done - by removal. Crook doesn't say. His mother is obscure, I can't even find her name.
  • describing his purchase as the "biggest gift I've ever given myself": this kind of wording grates against my ears: he called it "biggest gift I've ever given myself". I'd reword either to make it explicit that the quote is a quote, or paraphrase it.
Done - by paraphrasing.
  • The same with that "It was a strange building and had eerie murals painted on the ceiling ... I sensed evil". and commented that he "wanted Burges to be proud of us"—"that" introduces it as a subordinate clause, not as a quotation, so the switch in pronouns is unexpected and disorienting.
Done - by removal.
  • a little beetle on the wall or something like that, it's Burges's attention to detail that is so fascinating: that's a comma splice, which I think is safe to fix even in a quotation.
Not Done. Sorry, don't understand "comma splice". Can you clarify.
I fixed this by swapping out the comma for a semi-colon, which I think is allowable under the doctrine of minimal change. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So Done.
  • the structure and fabric: what does "the fabric" mean in this context?
Done - by removal.
  • 50 ft by 50 feet (15 m) square, (2500 square feet): no {{convert}} for the 2500 square feet?
Done ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • wearing a tunic powdered with letters: I'm having trouble visualizing this
Not Done. Can't bloody find it. Ah, Mercury. It'll be a pun on his being "messenger of the gods". Can I leave.
Well, I wouldn't oppose over it, but it's not the most helpful description. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now DONE. By removal. It's not essential and if it confuses, it's better out.
  • with walls lined with bookcases: the library, or the depiction of the Tower of Babel?
Done.
  • "parts of speech, noun, verb, preposition"; "systems of theology and law": quotes require attribution—but why is these quoted? It seems reading further that these aren't quoting someone, but are representing the themes themselves—but they read as quotations. Perhaps put them in italics instead?
Done.
  • "most celebrated of all Burges's jokes": the joke went over my head
It's a "dropped" h - 'urricanes 'ardly 'appen
Can the joke be explained in a footnote or something at least? The rebels and colonials are less likely to get it without 'elp. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take the point - I shall get advice on a footnote.
Well, the footnote leaves my head scratching. The link's great—but the quote defending it's use? and seemingly atributing it to Cockney? I'd also like to see it more explicit—something like "In Burges's time a "dropped aitch" — as in 'Enry 'Iggins for Henry Higgins — was socially taboo." Although I'm not sure if even "socially taboo" is necessary—I might go with something like "This refers to the "dropped aitch" — as in 'Enry 'Iggins for Henry Higgins — in many British English dialects." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping this is ok?
Not really—the quote in particular seems out of nowhere. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Dr. has removed the quote - are we good now? KJP1 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tall stories [being] part of the dining room rite": attribution required
Done.
  • while the ceiling is of "sheet-metal": not literally sheet metal? Why is this quoted?
Done'ish. - it is apparently sheet metal. But you're right, it doesn't need quotes.
  • supposedly to appease Betjeman's wife Penelope: who did the "supposing"? Is it disputed?
Done.
  • James Stourton describing its early twentieth-century history as "a paradigm of the reputation of the Gothic Revival": I don't understand—is this quote telling us how the house was ignored?
Yes - he's saying the neglect and decline of the house mirrored the decline in the reputation of Victorian Gothic architecture. OK to leave?
Well, I wasn't asking for it to be removed—but the way it' sintroduced it comes off almost as a non sequitur. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I hope. GA also found it confusing and I think I'd made it so by trying to link Burges's reputation with the fate of the house. I hope it is clearer now.
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice someone changed {{convert|0.3|mi}} to {{convert|0.48|km}}. It pretty much defeats the purpose of the template to hand-covert miles to km and then use the template to convert back to miles. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this. Will take advice.
If the intention was to switch the order of the distances, this can be achieved with {{convert|0.3|mi|order=flip}}. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is done now. KJP1 (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's still the same. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey:, what section are we talking about here? Or do you want all distances with flip in it?
Sorry, I misunderstood—I didn't realize the source was Google Maps. I thought it was an Imperial number from a text source that you guys had converted to metric and then put in a {{convert}} to convert back to Imperial. Sorry for the confusion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • - to dinner with the wine served from decanters of "barbarous opulence" to his own designs,: I think something went wrong here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I hope.
  • There's a harv error with Callan 2003—is it supposed to have been used somewhere? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. I think it's from the time when "The biggest present I've ever given to myself" was a direct quote. KJP1 (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Curly for your input!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley edit

  • Lead
    • I'm no fan of citations in a lead, but I think the direct quotations from Burges, Crook and Stourton need them here, even the Crook one which is repeated and cited in the main text. See WP:CITELEAD.
There's a debate on the lede quotations. Would you prefer them out?
I added the cite to Crook. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done now, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suffered significant vandalism" – what did the vandalism signify?
The most significant loss was the figure of Fame from the Dining Room chimneypiece. The statue of a boy with a hawk also went. Should I put a detail in?
Done. Added a mention of the loss of Fame.
Oh, I see what you mean. Done by removal.
  • Location and setting
    • "no fewer than six Royal Academicians" – a touch of WP:EDITORIAL?
Done.
  • Design, construction and craftsmanship
    • not sure we need link "marble".
Done.
  • Betjeman to Turnbull – 1962 to 1969
    • "Country Life" – meaning, I take it, the magazine found in dentists' waiting rooms. If so it should be italicised and linked.
Done.
  • "Lady Turnbull undertook a program of restoration" – two points here. "Lady Turnbull" is wrong. It is exactly like calling Prince Charles's first wife "Lady Spencer". The daughter of an earl is Lady Forename Surname. I suggest "She" at second mention and "Turnbull" at third. The second point is that you have misspelled programme. In the Queen's English the American spelling is reserved for computer-speak (though I have a horrible foreboding that the infection will spread to other uses of the word.)
Done and Done.
  • Drawing room
    • "Charles Handley-Read, the first scholar of the twentieth century ..." – both the link and the description would be better in the previous section, at the first mention of his name.
Done.
  • First floor
    • Is the sub-header strictly accurate? The text covers not only the first floor but also the garret.
Done.
  • Plan
    • A most impressive addition since I last read the article. One tiny point: the key says "Guest's bedroom", which would probably be better as either "Guests' bedroom" (there were two washstands, after all) or just "Guest room" as in the text above.
Done - as "guest room". The plan is good, isn't it. Hchc2009 did the honours.
  • Architectural coverage
  • "Country Life" – needs italics, and the title of the article arguably should be in quotes rather than italicised.
Done and Done.
  • "subject of a master's thesis by Helen Adkins" – there isn't really any evidence from a WP:RS that this thesis exists. Giving its title as a footnote doesn't get us anywhere with WP:VERIFIABLE.
      • Appreciate the point. But following an approach from Gerda, I've had a long message on my talkpage from the author which does contain a lot of useful information. I'm just not sure how to get it in.
        • If there is a lot of good stuff inadmissible under WP:VER and WP:OR it can usefully go on the article talk page, where readers can have the benefit while heeding the health warning. I looked in at your talk page and took my hat off to Ms Adkins – what a star! Tim riley talk 20:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed in relation to the article. Will deal with the Talkpage later. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "London 3: North West" – could do with a citation and page numbers.
Done.
  • References need a bit of polishing:
    • the Callan book lacks hyphens for the ISBN (978-1-86105-766-2)
Done.
  • Export of Objects of Cultural Interest 2010/11 – the author is not HMSO, but The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest (see here)
Done.
  • the Handley-Read refs are in a cite book template, which isn't ideal for magazine articles: it mucks up the italicisation of article title vis-à-vis publication title.
Not Done. Don't know how to address this.
I think I fixed this by citing to journal and adding italics for the magazine title. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, Done.
  • Osband – I don't see the point of giving an access date for a book with its own full publication date
Done.
  • Stamp & Amery lack an ISBN altogether. (978-0-85139-500-5 is what you want)
Done.

That's all from me. The article has come on apace since the peer review and I look forward to adding my support for its promotion once the minor points, above, are attended to. – Tim riley talk 10:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: I believe the points have all been addressed now, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Support with great pleasure. A most enjoyable article. Tim riley talk 09:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim - really glad you liked it and hugely appreciate your Support - particularly as I know that, deep down, you're with the critic who wrote; "the over ornate homes (with) fantastic ornamentation that made the hideous Victorian Gothic buildings of the period even more hideous...." Thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many thanks Tim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda edit

Excellent collaborative work! Only minor observations:

Gerda - very much appreciate your Support and your interest in the article. KJP1 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
"Designed in the French Gothic Revival style, it was designated a Grade I listed building in 1949." This combines two things which seem unrelated to me. Follow three "considered", before the reader gets more facts, - consider that also, please.
I have no idea what you mean! If you're unfamiliar read Gothic Revival and Listed building! What does "Follow three "considered", before the reader gets more facts" mean?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trying harder:
I think the designation as a Grade I building has nothing to do with the style, therefore I would not combine the two things in one sentence.
I agree, so the version I last edited the other day. I'd rather state Grade I listed at the beginning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I hope this works for everyone.
The other point was fixed since I saw it first. New:
"particularly the McConnochie House in Cardiff and Castell Coch and Cardiff Castle." - Is the double "and" intended?
Done. No it wasn't. Removed.
"The house was inherited by his brother-in-law, Richard Popplewell Pullan, who had married Burges's sister, Mary." - seems a bit redundant to say that someone who married the sister is a brother-in-law.
Done.
  • Location ...
Strange to have one distance in metric but not the other.
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Art colony" to lead?
Sorry - not sure what is meant here. Can you clarify.
Short for: is it worth mentioning in the lead that there was this art colony, - for perspective?
Can't quite see how to fit this in the lead. OK to leave it? KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Design ...
"The pair also ..." seems strange after the previous sentence talked about their single achievements.
Done.
  • Burges and after – 1878 to 1962
I don't like the header, sorry, don't know what "and after" is supposed to say.
Me neither, it's been changed around a lot lately. KJP?
Done. Any better?
I don't think we need the hint of Main article Burges, - people had chances to find that.
Done.
"Elsewhere he kept his large collections ..." - elsewhere?
Done.
  • Exterior
In the quote box: if we have to say who "he" is, it should be on the first occurrence.
Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In contrast to the typical style of houses on the Holland Estate, the cultural historian Caroline Dakers writes ..." - I don't think her writing is in contrast, rather that she writes about the contrast.
Done.
"At the Tower House the staircase is consigned", - if we really need to repeat the name, a comma might help.
Done.
Surprised to see the designation here, - history?
Done.
Madonna and child? Madonna and Child?
Done.
  • First floor ...
"the Red Bed (his own)" - a bit strange
Done.
  • Architectural ...
"The house, and its creator, were then largely ignored, James Stourton describing the house's early twentieth-century history as "a paradigm of the reputation of the Gothic Revival"" - had to read three times and still not sure what it means.
Done, I hope. You weren't the first to struggle over this sentence!

Thank you all for good reading, good luck with it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gerda, very many thanks for your very helpful comments. Much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rationalobserver, whilst you mean well, I really do think you should leave the fixing to the nominators. Cheers. CassiantoTalk 23:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK Cass, there's so much to get through below that anybody helping is most welcome from my perspective anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear! KJP1 (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for many improvements! I Suggest to include the floorplan, rather at the beginning of Interior.
Dare not moved this as I'll mess up the layout. Will leave to others if the consensus is to move it. KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: I don't mean move, I mean bring the floor plan of only the ground floor early. Some people prefer prose, others plans and structured information. I would like to see a floor plan early in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the very best I can do. Trying to split the plan into sections is waaaaaaaaaaaay beyond my capabilities. That said, I do think it looks better there. Others may not. KJP1 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like that better than before, but it wasn't quite what I meant, English is difficult. If you click on the link to floorplan above, you find a different, more detailed one, and I would imagine THAT where it fits best, with the description of the ground floor, while the complete set could stay more in the back, for the enthusiasts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating: is there a good reason not to use the detailed floor plan (linked above) for the ground floor in the context of the ground floor, leaving the complete set for later as is was before? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most complete example of a medieval secular interior produced by the Gothic Revival, and the last." This is in a quote box, which is in layout conflict with images, + I don't think it's a good quote, - how can revival produce medieval? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on the layout but I think it is quite a good quote. What he is saying is - the Gothic Revival produced a lot of "imitations/copies/fakes/recreations" of medieval interiors and, of all of them, the Tower House was the best and the last. It goes to the notability of the Tower House, as does the Stourton quote about it being the most "singular" house in London, even including the Soane Museum. I'd rather it remained but very willing, of course, to see what others think. KJP1 (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If people agree it's a good quote I think it should go to a different section, not "First floor and garret". I could see it in "Architectural coverage", while I think the image there might appear sooner, showing Burges as the inspiration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, reluctant to move it myself. Can someone else if it's agreed it should move. KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Would you be willing to support if the quote was removed from the lede? I do see a problem with the repetition of Gothic Revival currently actually.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine, I see that it was moved from the quote box in a floor section to the lede, which is better, because it's a general remark, not floor-related, and it's understandable in context. - One point above, though,

@Gerda Arendt: I've placed the ground floor plan in a see also in the main plan, couldn't find a place to display it without it looking cluttered. OK now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you mean by "see also in the main plan". I still think to have the plan of four levels (main plan?) would be better later, but the detailed one, hinting at the complex ceiling structure (and not yet in the article or I didn't find it), better where the floor is described, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you have no intention of supporting this so I think we'd best leave it at that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike intention-reading ;) - I am asking (for a while now) why a floor plan which shows the complexity of the building better than the simple Main plan is not taken? Perhaps one of the other nominators can answer that rather simple question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Plan section features a plan of all the floors and a key, which in my opinion is a superior image as it covers all of the floors. The ground floor plan would look too cluttered if we also added it and not as good as the other if we replaced it. I've added See also Ground floor plan image in that section so readers can have the best of both worlds with a labeled plan of the ground floor too. Is this not good enough for you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
English is a difficult language. I said "I don't see what you mean by "see also in the main plan"." - You start mind reading ;) - instead of saying that you added it in the caption of the other plan. NOW I found it, hope future readers will see it more easily, - I missed it without explanation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you said "I don't see what you mean by "see also in the main plan" I didn't know quite what to make of it as I thought you'd be watching the article and would have seen it! OK, thanks for your support anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage edit

Referencing edit
  • Any reason you've chosen to make the shortened footnote read "Handley-Read – Burlington." rather than "Handley-Read 1963."? After all, the two Handley-Read sources are publication-year distinguishable, and you cite the other one conventionally. While we're at it, since these look like periodicals, any chance of pagination information for either or both?
Changed to Handley-Read 1963, but I'm not sure about the pagination. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - page numbers added for both the Burlington and Country Life articles.
Ideally, the actual bibliographic entry for articles in periodicals includes the full page-range of that article, but I'm not going to consider that actionable; what you've got here is good enough if someone really wants to track these down. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm reading it correctly, that Arts Council document has an author and a (publication?) date: Frances Collard and 19 May 2010, respectively. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that Arts Council should instead be Arts Council England, and ... I have no idea what this document is. This feels like the sort of thing that might have been part of something longer in its print format, or at least be assigned some sort of bureaucratic document number. But I guess we work with what we have?
Hopefully...
  • I have absolutely no idea what note 64 (the "Accession number" entry) is, but I have to assume this isn't a complete bibliographical entry for it.
Done, by removal. KJP1 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that the reference currently at #69 is a thesis paper? Frankly, I'm not sure that an unpublished Master's thesis is worth mentioning at all. Elsewhere in the project, doctoral theses are sometimes viewed as acceptable source material, depending on the context, with lesser papers not so much so. If you are determined to keep this, the citation must be formatted better than this. Perhaps explore the murky world of {{cite thesis}}? It looks to be in German, so make sure that's noted.
Done. I've removed this as advised that, being unpublished, it can't be verifiable. But on the article's Talkpage, I shall post the very valuable information kindly provided by the author of the thesis as it would be a great pity not to make it available. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am a huge anti-fan of "Further Reading" sections in general, but I would not object in the least to its inclusion in one here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noted - thanks.
  • Page number for the Davies citation?
A problem. I don't have this book. I'll see what I can find. KJP1 (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stumped here as I don't have it and can't find it. I could remove it as it isn't essential, but it is quite helpful, I think, for the sources on the house to be as comprehensive as possible. Can you live without page numbers? KJP1 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a problem at this point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prose edit
  • "the names of the individuals and firms who undertook work at the house": This is the third undertaken/undertook in the article. Perhaps just "who worked at the house" (or possibly "on the house"), although you'll then need to reword the next sentence to avoid redundancy?
I've reworded one differently to both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Problem persists. First one is in the lead ("construction undertaken by the Ashby Brothers"), then the previous paragraph ("were undertaken in July 1875"), then this one ("firms who undertook work"). There are two more later in. There are generally a lot of synonymous ways to make these statements, and it's the sort of word that stands out (at least to this American reader) when used repeatedly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the first section of history right? I see absolutely no problem with what's given and it doesn't read repetitively to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that this might be an ENGVAR issue. You use undertake in some form five times in the article as a whole. Now, that's a perfectly good word, but not one I'd expect to see at that density. Is it simply more commonly used for "getting things started" in the UK? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I hope, by changing three "undertake/undertook"s. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Catching a chill while overseeing work at Cardiff, Burges returned, half paralysed, to the Tower House where he lay dying for some three weeks.": As the Internet says, "That escalated quickly." Also, as its acting as a single adjective here, "half-paralysed". And, finally, there's an errant extra space between the closing period and the reference.
I rearranged the sentences to preserve chronological order. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chronology is fixed; other problems are not, including that extra space after "weeks." Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the extra space ([2]). Rationalobserver (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Ilchester Estate mentioned by Handley-Read the same "agents" discussed by Betjeman and Green? If not, then the Handley-Read setenced needs to be reworded, because currently it implies that these various people are just ascribing different motivations to the same group. For that matter, if the house was constructed on the lands of the Earl of Ilchester, is that something germane to the Location and setting section, way earlier in the article?
  • Upon second look, I see that the Earl is indeed mentioned in the History section, so to some extent the last part of this objection is satisfied (although I'm still tempted to say it would provide a historical context for the Location bit). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have tried to tighten this up. Really need to know when the JB letter was written but don't. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cork Cathedral is a duplicate link, as it is a piped link to Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral, first used in the History section. Also, the piping is confusing here. Since this cathedral was first introduced by another name, a casual reader cannot know that Burges's first major comission is the one being referred to here.
Removed the duplicate link. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still think there needs to be a way to let a reader known that this is the same building talked about earlier, either by calling it "also known as Cork Cathedral" on the first appearance (or something like that) or by calling it by its formal name here. I really didn't realize it was the same thing until I investigated why my duplicate link detector was pinging. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, so I've added the suggested clarifier ([3]), but that now makes two "Corks" close to each other. I hope that's okay. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also cited it. I think C.H-R was referring to both doors. The exact quote reads "The bronze doors in the hall, for instance, are similar to doors at Cork Cathedral." KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back up at the top of History, where Saint Fin Barre's is glossed as Cork Cathedral, might I suggest this slight rewording to move the Corks a little further apart: "The architect William Burges gained his first major commission in 1863 at the age of 35, Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral in Cork, also known as Cork Cathedral."? Or something along those lines, I don't pretend this to be perfect either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better. Done ([4]). Rationalobserver (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the "founders of systems of theology and law" metaphorical, or are these depictions of historical personnages? If the later, I think the phrase shouldn't be italicized, as it would be literal (and, if available, it'd be nice to know who).
Done - I hope. I've given the exact Crook naming of the figures.
I don't think the list needs to be in quotation marks, as it conveys no opinion; regardless of who said it, those are the figures. But it's not hurting anything this way, either, I suppose. I might have "lawyers and theologians" but I suspect ENGVAR is at work there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't think the Crook quote being used as a pullquote here is significant or exciting enough to earn that position. I'd relegate it to prose in the Architectural coverage section, were it up to me.
Care to tell me which quote and what section specifically Squeamish Ossifrage?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The most complete example...", the same one as in the lead. It's not that I think it's a bad quote, or anything! I'd use it, too, were I writing this. I'm just unsure about it's placement as 1) a pullquote and 2) where it is in the article. Isn't this pretty much the definition of architectural coverage? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Text squish is a reason for my concern. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rate and quality of improvement being made to this article has been impressive and worthy of my sincere admiration. The reference issues and inconsistent furniture descriptions are the most serious remaining problems, I think, and the ones that are most directly actionable shortcomings with regard to non-"brilliant prose" criteria. At this point, I'm withdrawing my objection to promotion, but I'd like to see especially those addressed (or at least examined, if otherwise impossible) before I can consider formal support. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated. I have gone through the article capitalizing the names of pieces of furniture where they are specific items, e.g. the Zodiac Settle. Where they are non-specific, e.g. bronze table, I haven't. This follows the style of both Crook and Handley-Read, the most authoritative writers on Burges's furniture. I hope this works for you and shall go back and do a further check to make sure I've caught them all. Then I will look at the citations. I've hope I've also addressed your two outstanding concerns re. the decoration in the Library - see above. KJP1 (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been an admittedly hard judge here, and I'd like to thank Dr. Blofeld, KJP1, and Rationalobserver for humoring (wait, ENGVAR!) humouring my concerns. I would like to see something done with the "Accession number" reference, because it's really not a proper citation as it stands (I still don't know what it is). Otherwise, although I believe there's still a little bit of polish to be done, I am happy to support promotion. It is well-earned. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Squeamish for your input and support, we got there eventually!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the Dr. says, really appreciate your efforts and your support. I intend to remove what is now Reference 67, the "Accession number" reference. We can't identify it and, as importantly, it's not necessary as Reference 62 confirms that the table in question is located at the Birmingham City Art Gallery. I think this addresses your remaining concern. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indopug edit

  • The "Piece, date and location" column should be split into three or four columns, and each furniture item should have its own row (use rowspan). The table currently looks cluttered with too much going on in one column (defeating the purpose of using a table in the first place).
Done - by someone far more adept with the tools than I, and very good it looks. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Architectural coverage should have the subsection Footnotes? (though you could just drop the subsection altogether by incorporating the footnote into the main text in a parenthesis)
Perfectly appropriate, and I believe in response to another viewer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here isn't that you have a Footnotes section, it's that it is currently a === subsection under "Architectural coverage", when it should be a ==-level section like Notes and References (especially given that it's not a footnote to the section it's currently nested under). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa on that one: sorry! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How terrible! All sorted now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image placement and sizing could be better. Far too often the text is sandwiched between images (or quote boxes/templates). Below Exterior and design there's a huge white space on my screen.
Can't help with the layout, unfortunately. Beyond my paygrade. But the article's had some rearranging. Does it look ok now? KJP1 (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the coordinates need to appear twice? (infobox + top of the article)
Yes, because that's the way the infobox is programmed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose could be simplified. The house provided a suitable backdrop for entertaining his "range of friends run[ning] the whole gamut of Pre-Raphaelite London" – to dinner with the wine served from decanters of "barbarous opulence", or to tea in the garden, with the tea poured from pots shaped like a pomegranate or a fish is a mouthful. So is the article's very first sentence.
Trimmed as it's in the history.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sentences are very confusing. The book contains a large number of photographs of the interior of the house by Francis Beford made me think "what Frank Bedford house?". The next sentence is ungrammatical too; it should be changed to "The house was then largely ignored; James Stourton described the house's its..."
Yes, I don't agree Indopug.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence could easily be changed to The book contains a large number of photographs by Francis Beford of the house's interior so that even somebody with my admittedly suspect literacy wouldn't be confused.
Have tried to simplify it. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The house was then largely ignored, James Stourton describing the house's..." is correct grammar, really? Even if so it reads awkwardly (especially with the repetitive "house") and would be better the way I changed it above.

—indopug (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, have tried to simplify. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessary "the": the popstar David Bowie, The cultural historian Caroline Dakers, the American entertainer Liberace and so on.
    • This is anything but unnecessary in good English. The anarthrous nominal premodifier (a.k.a. the false title) is, we know, accepted in American usage, but scrupulous English writers eschew it and leave it as the domain of tabloid newspapers. Tim riley talk 19:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excessive use of "Burges" and "house" (often several times within a single sentence) can be reduced by replacing with pronouns.
    • Having read indopug's comments I should say this is the one in which he/she raises a point worth following up. I admit I didn't spot repeated nouns that could be pronouns, but one does (or at least I do) sometimes miss the chance to improve the flow of one's prose on those lines, and I'll run an eye over this article again with that in mind. Tim riley talk 20:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • After a fourth reading(!) Perhaps "another of Burges's passions: a fondness for opium", "Burges's inspirations were French Gothic" and "The frontages come from the other townhouse Burges designed" could benefit from replacing the surname with a pronoun. "House" crops up passim but I can find only one borderline case where "it" might be preferable, and I'd leave the noun unmolested. Tim riley talk 21:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"fourth reading(!)"—I dare say that right there is the problem Tim. You've grown far too close and attached to the text. You're easily able to find errors in my quickly made comments, but don't see the repetitive words in "Burges's brother-in-law, Richard Popplewell Pullan, extensively described the house in the second of two works he wrote about Burges, The House of William Burges, A.R.A" or "The house was then largely ignored, James Stourton describing the house's early twentieth-century decline", or the obvious ambiguity of "The book contains a large number of photographs of the interior of the house by Francis Beford".—indopug (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove a few.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also sought to prune the "Burges" and "house" repetitions. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't fault the research, but even from a glance it's clear that the prose and visual presentation of the article needs improvement.—indopug (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest possible respect, I should be cautious about heeding strictures on matters of prose from anyone who thinks two nouns take a singular verb as in "the prose and visual presentation of the article needs…" Verbum sat. Tim riley talk 19:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And with the greatest possible respect, I would suggest that what this article needs is an through copyedit from somebody looking at it with fresh eyes, not a backs-to-the-wall defence against the hordes of the great unwashed.—indopug (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article was thoroughly read, reviewed and copyedited by some of the most productive featured articles contributors on wikipedia Indopug, including Tim, Brianboulton, Wehwalt, Cassianto, SchroCat and a few others who have over 100 FAs between them. If there were serious problems with the prose they'd have said so during the peer review. Sure, I welcome anybody to further read and edit it and comment, but your "needs fresh eyes" as if nobody competent has read it and only the article writers have edited it is not true. It's already had at least 10 pairs of "fresh eyes" looking at it, how many do you want? The only issue with the prose I can see is in places perhaps where quoting by the likes of Crook is given and might be paraphrased or reworded to improve the flow a little.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can, quite fairly, be accused of being too close to the text and I'm grateful to you, and to Squeamish Ossifrage, for your detailed comments. I think, however, that they can be satisfactorily addressed and I shall attempt to do so by the weekend. Best regards, KJP1 (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope your concerns regarding the prose have been satisfactorily addressed and I greatly appreciate the help that has been given. I'm absolutely no expert on image sizing or placement within Wikipedia but others appear to think they are ok now. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blofield, the extensive copyediting the article has received after I made my comments vindicates my stand. It is indeed much better now, and I have no objections to its becoming FA.—indopug (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. I was indeed too close to the text to note the many repetitions of "Burges" and "Tower House". KJP1 (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are far too many "The Tower House"s when "the house" or even "it" would suffice otherwise it is very interesting. 86.128.41.249 (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very glad the article is of interest.KJP1 (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have pruned more "Burges" and "The Tower House" mentions.KJP1 (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou SchroCat and for your comments during the peer review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything missed?

Dr. Blofeld - I've gone back through all the comments and, beyond some differing views regarding general layout, the positioning of a quotebox, and the size of images, I can't see anything that hasn't been addressed. So, what have I missed? KJP1 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see anything, but Squeamish is better equipped to comment on that!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you head back over to The Ritz and I'll hang around here. I've forgotten - do we request "image" and "citation" checks or do the FAC people arrange this? KJP1 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm out of things to pick on. As I've checked several of the sources against the text along the way, the delegates may consider my contributions to have also included a source check. I am explicitly not an expert at the intricacies of image licensing, but I saw no problems in a quick image check either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've looked carefully through the article and found it well presented with all pertinent details of the building and its owners. It makes interesting reading and highlights one of London's most striking private residences.--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Ipigott, glad you found it interesting!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- on PR fixes and resolved comments here. An interesting article on an important building. CassiantoTalk 21:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Cass for the support and input.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton edit

Leaning to support. I was one of several reviewers who made copious comments at the PR stage. The article has changed considerably since then, because of the large amount of work done at this FAC stage, mostly to its benefit. One of the downsides of so many reviewers is the number of issues, frequently trivial, often contradictory, that confront the nominators, who have to satisfy a range of opinions. I congratulate the nominators for the equable and responsive way they have handled the avalanche of suggestions handed to them here, with hardly a hint of impatience. I have made a few minor edits to the article, and have a few outstanding points for consideration:

  • The quotation in the lead: "the most complete example of a medieval secular interior produced by the Gothic Revival and the last" is clearly missing a comma after "revival", otherwise it makes no sense. Perhaps it was missing in the original; even so, it should be inserted here. We are not obliged to repeat the mistakes of our sources, and this is not worth the bother of a "sic".
Done. The error was mine, not the esteemed Professor Crook's and is now corrected. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversions: the conversion of metres to feet is fine when dealing with measurements – of a room, say – but looks very odd when applied to distances, especially for as long as 1,600 feet. We just don't "do" this sort of distance in feet. I'm not sure what the answer is here; if you remove the feet conversion, some busybody is bound to insist it be restored. My suggestion is to rewrite the sentence, getting rid of the 100 metres conversion entirely, and using a different conversion template for the 500m. Thus: "The Tower House is on a corner of Melbury Road, just north of Kensington High Street and some 500 metres (0.31 mi) due northeast of Kensington (Olympia) station..." etc.
Done. I've just taken the measurements out. I don't think they will actually be of use to anyone and they, and the conversions, did clutter things up. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image use: There are lots of images in the article, to the point where there is significant clutter. Looking at the image in the "Exterior and design" section, this is so similar to the lead image as to be almost indistinguishable. Its placement opposite a long quote box leads to considerable text squeezing. I'd recommend losing the image, or the box, though in this case the box is more useful than the image.
Done - by losing the image. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this same section, the house is described both as "massive" and "not large", which is confusing to readers. But what is meant by "not large"? What is the standard being applied – Buckingham Palace? We are told that the floor plan provides approximately 2,500 feet of floor space – but there are two principal floors, a basement and an attic. I make that at least 8,500 in all, which is ENORMOUS for a private house in this country, the equivalent of about 8 pre-war suburban semis. So I strongly advise you lose the subjective "not large", and say something like: "With a floor plan of about 50 ft by 50 feet (15 m) square,[34] 2,500 square feet (230 m2) on three floors, Burges went about its construction on a grand scale."
Done. I see what you mean. I actually think "massive" is used here in the sense of "having bulk (mass)", rather than big, but it was confusing. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again for clutter-avoidance reasons, I recommend you lose the quote box in the "First floor" section. It isn't worth overcrowding the main text for this.
Done. By losing the quote box - which incidentally did have the comma. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to receiving your responses, and to moving to full support thereafter. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate your further suggestions and continued interest in the article. I very much agree that the FAC has improved it, as the PR did before. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine. I will nonetheless wait a little longer before my declaration, as I see that points and suggestions are still coming in (below) It's unlikely they will change my overall view, but I want to be sure. Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I see no further issues raised that justify witholding of full support from this article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Brian. Thanks for your excellent comments during the review and edits too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Simon Burchell edit

Just reading through now, will make comments as I go. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lead, Golden Bed in linked and Red Bed is not. Since Golden Bed appears noteworthy, I assume that Red Bed would be equally noteworthy, so it is worth redlinking. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have an article that's why!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is precisely why it should be redlinked... Simon Burchell (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - as a blue link. KJP1 (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! Simon Burchell (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's a miserable Stub but we can work it up when we're done with FAC comments on this! KJP1 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - by removal. I don't think his nationality is critical. KJP1 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I think. Thank heavens someone else appears to have fixed it - I'm a menace when let loose on those conversion tables. KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid not - 2nd paragraph... Simon Burchell (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now Done, I truly hope. KJP1 (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - indeed, they could have been stethoscopes or scalpels. KJP1 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "him as Architect standing" - any particular reason why Architect is in italics? It looks weird. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - perhaps? What it is trying to say is that Burges, as Architect, is the A from the Alphabet frieze which decorates the room. Is this any better? KJP1 (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I would say it needs the explanation you have just given here, or something similar. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this works better. KJP1 (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hyperlinks from the references could really do with archiveurl/archivedate parameters to prevent WP:Linkrot. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid I just don't know how to do this, but the good Dr. will. KJP1 (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about this too much, I'm working through it now. It seems all the links are to Google Books, which I would hope is a stable website - still, you never know. For future reference, plug a web address into Wayback Machine here, and if the page has been archived it will give you the option of a saved version. As it happens, nothing I've done so far was pre-archived, so I'm archiving it as I go. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I shall save these and try to remember them for future reference. But, as the Dr. knows only too well, I have a bad habit of forget wikipedia editing tips and tools. KJP1 (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since these are all book sources, I think I will just remove the archiveurls I put in - everything is in print anyway; the tool is better for dynamic sources on the web. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for your patience and perseverance, and your rapid responses, - it's a fine article, and the building sounds fascinating. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate your comments and Support. It is a fascinating building and merits FA status. Thank you very much for moving it on. KJP1 (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thankyou Simon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from We hope and on images edit

Support I first became aware of this wonderful property after I was asked to help with interior photos. I was fascinated by it and by the man who "dreamed" and built it. A lot of work has gone into it and I think this is a first-quality effort by one and all. We hope (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers We hope, and thanks for the images! A pity we don't have an abundance of colour interior photos of every room though, some days perhaps Jimmy Page will kindly upload some!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you help with the Stourton book? Or with the Matthew Williams? I don't know any other recent photographic excusions into Mr Page's elusive but enchanting house. I should love to see inside, but doubt I will. Am most grateful for your support for the article. KJP1 (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I helped find non-watermarked photos from the Pulian book and ran across a larger copy of the exterior illustration from The Building News. I'd also love to see the inside but like you, I don't think I'll be able to either. We need to cultivate some new friends like Jimmy Page! :-) Recently I saw that the US Library of Congress does have a copy of the Pulian book but sadly, it hasn't been scanned to be online. They offer some photos of pages and scans of them but by the time you get done paying their fees, you'd be better off either trying to buy a copy or taking a trip to a library that has scanned it. Copies of non-scanned items are US$30 per page wanted. We hope (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is impossible. After a very long search, I got a very good quality A3 copy of The Architectural Designs of William Burges from the British Library store in Wetherby. And now I am waiting for the V&A to finalise their digitalisation of The House of William Burges which is imminent and, on completion, they will send me a copy. But neither would beat being mates with Jimmy Page and getting an invite! KJP1 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the encyclopedic value of having detailed coverage of interior images in colour would be immense. In the commons we should have a category for each room and closeups of the detail on lots of the furnishings. Jimmy Page seems to be a Burges fan and is also enthusiastic about his work. I think he'd be interested in photographing it and sharing it, but then again he might want to keep it private. If he wants to show off the genius of Burges though I can't think of a better way to do so. Does he have a twitter account? Perhaps somebody here on Twitter could try to get hold of him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone in his position can afford not to be on Twitter and Facebook. We hope (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not on either so cannot possibly comment. KJP1 (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed his site, I really hope they'll see the potential in this, fingers crossed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Had my say at the peer review. Gilding the lily I fear.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most grateful for your support and for the many improvements you suggested at PR. KJP1 (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thanks Wehwalt.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- hmm, we'd had so much discussion of images above I thought one of our experts might have verified licensing already but perhaps not, so will list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image check and some random comments from Crisco
    • What's with Architect? Why the bold?
Yes, it is a little confusing. What I'm trying to indicate is that Burges, as Architect, was the capital A for the architectural alphabet frieze which decorated the Library. The same frieze also includes the "dropped H" joke. Would it be better without the bold? KJP1 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
    • FN 21 (Gelson) has a Harv error. Looks like you're missing the year (x3)
Will have a look at this. KJP1 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - by removal. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now re-instated. My mistake, didn't notice the earlier use. KJP1 (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit of messing up, I think this is now ok? KJP1 (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is awkward. Checking Crook, to try and find a better source, I find I wrongly attributed it to Godwin back when doing WB's page. Now corrected at Commons, and given a source. Hope it works now. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence that Poynter did this? The source (this) goes directly to the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crook, p=75, has the image, and the attribution, along with a description of Burges as "short-sighted, pug-nosed, more than a little camp." I should have used that. But that doesn't get us any closer to an attribution on-line. Thoughts?
  • I'd just note this on the file information page (something like "Author identified in {{citation}}). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think "Burges in profile" is now right. I'm hoping the PD templates are correct, the attribution to Poynter through Crook is ok, and the source properly links to the V&A page which records the detail around Poynter and Burges. But now I need to look at "Burges as Architect" as the trawling I've done now makes me suspect it's actually by Weekes not Poynter! KJP1 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, don't know how to do this. Perhaps the Dr. could help. KJP1 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now sourced here [5]. Do we have a problem with this, and the drawing above as Poynter died in 1919? Would PD-70 work in both cases? KJP1 (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PD-70 is given on both images. But in the hidden categories both have [6]. I do not know how to remove these but they shouldn't be there, I think. KJP1 (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template in the PD-art template is using PD-old-100, hence the problem (there's two templates on the file; you should be using PD-70 and PD-1923, not PD-100). This would presumably apply to both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can fix both but may need help. KJP1 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now I'm certain the artist was Weekes, not Poynter. The incorrect attributions are very regrettable and I apologise for them. Burges employed so many artists to decorate his furniture, fourteen on the Great Bookcase alone, it can sometimes be hard to work out exactly who did what. Nevertheless, they were wrong originally, but are correct now. For which, many thanks to Crisco 1492 for his very thorough image review. I've also tried to address the licencing and source issues in relation to both, and hope they are also right now.
When did Weekes die? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1920, although this and the Christie's source indicate 1893.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. This source (at least, according to what's visible to me) says that he was still active in 1918... cutting it a bit close. 1920 (assuming that's correct; my new source suggests it's possible) would be enough for PD-70 and PD-1996.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like KJP agrees with 1920. Then PD-70 and PD-1996 is best. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This [7] gives 1920. I've done a stub. He had two other artist brothers, Herbert and Henry Jr., so there could be confusion between them. KJP1 (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which I think concludes the responses to the image review? KJP1 (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure how to achieve the link you want. Dr.? KJP1 (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither do I. Don't doubt it's free though. Guess that's fine. Images are okay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for a review as thorough as that you gave to WB himself and which picked up two embarrassing errors of my own making. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always glad to help, and we got a new article out of it too. :D — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check needed still. Would it be better though for somebody with access to some of the books to check? I believe Tim riley did with the original Burges article, he's on a break right now though I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have, almost, all the books but don't think I could be trusted to do a spot-check. KJP1 (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image & Source review by Gaff edit

  • Looks like I missed the boat on this, but nobody took down the request for a review from FAC talk page. Image licensing looks good, although I wonder about the map. I am not familiar with using the soruce provided and cannot tell where the map inset came from. It looks like it was put up by a trusted and experienced reviewer and was commented on already above, so it all looks good to me. --Gaff (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked the license on the source page; it appears correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaff: You're welcome to do a spot check on the accessible sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source " HMSO 2011." Currently reference number 17. Why not give page numbers? Looks like the relevant pages are 25-27?
I'm a bit confused but it looks like the HMSO paper is about the settle and reads "The settle was placed opposite the windows in the drawing room in Tower House and remained there, descending in the family of R.P. Pullan, Burges’s brother-in-law, and was later owned by Col. T.H. Minshall, Col. E.R. B. Graham, and John Betjeman who removed it and gave it to Evelyn Waugh." That suggests that Pullan, Minshall, et al leased only the settle?
I think the rewording addresses this. KJP1 (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Betjeman/Green letter p. 289 (ref#23 currently). I can only get a snippet view. Looks like it was a letter to Evelyn (presumably Waugh) and mentions some "dilapidations to the Ilchester estate" and "smooth operators". That fits with how the source is used in the article, except I'm not sure if Betjeman, Green, or both signed the letter.
  • Richard Harris: a sporting life -- also only snippet view available, but the page is about Liberace, so looks okay, with AGF in effect. This work is cited 4 times; the first three could be bundled per WP:CITE (obviously not a critical change).
  • "The ceiling is divided into coffered compartments by square beams, and features symbols of the Sun, the planets and the signs of the Zodiac." Is the paraphrasing from the source a bit tight here?
It's PD source I think anyway, not sure how we can really avoid word similarity here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The reference is PD. If necessary, consider Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying_material_from_free_sources as a resource, which has some guidance on adding attribution templates for sentences or words taken verbatim from PD but not placed in quotations. I'm not expert enough to say anything definitive here. --Gaff (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is acceptable as a re-work, someone please copy to the article. "Highly decorated square beams divided the ceiling into compartments. The ceiling was covered with enameled iron which was decorated with Zodiac symbols and the Sun and its planets." We hope (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made of ivory, with sapphires for eyes; it was later stolen.[22][53]" Reference 53 does not mention the theft (unless I missed it), but the layout of the citations suggests that it does. Should the 53 go just after the semicolon? I'm a relative newbie at FAC and don't know how tight the sourcing needs to be. --Gaff (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope I think helped with providing that source, can you see anything WH?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal is from 1916; as a result, it's Public domain in the US since it dates before 1923 and full view of the magazine is allowed at HathiTrust--provided you're in the US.
As the description notes, the figure was meant to have wings which were both gilded and enameled. Apparently the "Fame" figure was not complete at the time of Burges' death. The source goes on to say that the figure was easily removable as it was on a hook. It looks like this might have made it easier to steal--the extra detail might be welcome here. We hope (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we have a source linking the hook to the theft, it is WP:OR.--Gaff (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK-someone's found it in the 1966 Country Life article on page 404 and added the page number to the ref. We hope (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The country life article has snippet views. Using creative google searches I did manage to confirm the 3 refs to page 604 and 2-3 other spot checks on this one. There are six citations to this text without page numbers assigned (ref #37 currently).
I think I've found and entered the other pages in question. We hope (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to come. As others have mentioned, it would be good to have some spot checks from the offline text sources. --Gaff (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)--Gaff (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gaff, Is there more that needs addressing? KJP1 (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done multiple spot checks (a dozen or so) of internet accessible sources and they look okay. I and somebody else suggested some spot checks from the offline text sources, since the bulk of information comes from those sources. That's all I can offer, for now, due to other real-life obligations.--Gaff (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. @Ian Rose: I'm not sure it needed a spot check anyway but I think it's good just to do an odd check. I think that should be OK now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new at this and not really sure what is needed. That is something I can ask about on talk page rather than gumming up the works here. --Gaff (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm told that a spot check is only usually done if it's the editor's first nom. I don't see the harm in doing one personally. I don't think another person really needs to do one unless Ian wants them too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All that being said, I too support this as FA quality work.--Gaff (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Gaff!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, much appreciate your input and your support. KJP1 (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Rationalobserver edit

Support – For full disclosure, I have made numerous edits to the article in response to FAC suggestions ([8]), but I haven't added anything or otherwise made any substantive changes. I think the article is well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched. It's also neutral, stable, and well-illustrated. It follows the style guidelines and stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. Well done, all! This is an excellent article and a fine contribution to Wikipedia. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RO, but you've probably put in enough work pruning this IMO to claim being a contributor!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - your input greatly improved the article, for which many thanks, and for your support. KJP1 (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from WereSpielChequers edit

Support Nice work, I enjoyed reading that. One minor query, a Bronze figure - made of ivory? I thought Bronze figures were made of a copper tin alloy. ϢereSpielChequers 21:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completed the description of the figure: " its hands and face were made of ivory, with sapphires for eyes; it was later stolen." We hope (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support and I'm glad that you enjoyed the article. KJP1 (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Tower_House/archive1&oldid=1136457822"