Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of non-ecclesiastical and non-residential works by John Douglas/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:19, 2 March 2010 [1].

---

List of non-ecclesiastical and non-residential works by John Douglas

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/List of non-ecclesiastical and non-residential works by John Douglas/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because...this is the fourth (and last) of a series of lists of works by John Douglas. The other three lists are all FLs and this list follows the same format. The lead is similar, apart from the last paragraph that is modified to apply to this list. The format of the list is precisely the same as that for List of houses and associated buildings by John Douglas. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hassocks

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

Sorry I can't quite do a full review at this stage: it's my lunch break, and it's about to end! I will talk about the table itself and the notes later, although a brief look offers up no concerns or questions. As with other John Douglas lists, very little needs to be changed: another well-designed and comprehensive list. TOOLBOX STUFF All eternal links are fine; no disambig links in place. NOTES FOR OTHER REVIEWERS In case anybody wondered why the little globes next to the coordinates suddenly disappear about halfway down, apparently there is a glitch with {{Template:Coord}} at the moment. See here for discussion. I discussed the title with Peter soon after he created the list, and again later. The current title replaced a possibly more elegant but less accurate title which referred to "miscellaneous works". It is very difficult to convey the necessary information about such a wide variety of structures in a title which remains both readable and encyclopaedic: alternative suggestions or comments would be welcome. LEAD I remember you worked on the houses list most recently. I think paragraph 2 of the lead has been copied over to this list without tweaking the text, as it still refers to houses. I suggest recasting the last sentence of that paragraph to reflect the geographical distribution of the works that are discussed in this list. Amended; I think this works. Peter I. Vardy (talk) ...major, or more unusual, works... and Less usual structures... could be considered POV-ish without attribution. (I know you're trying to make the point that these are unusual in relation to his main body of work, i.e. churches and houses, but one could argue that a bridge is no less usual than a cheese factory, and so on...) Perhaps try something like: Douglas's major works, excluding churches or houses, or structures relating to them, are described here. Maybe Less usual structures designed by Douglas are... could become something like Other commissions include.... I take the latter suggestion and have changed it more or less along the lines you suggest. The first is more difficult. I struggled with this when I wrote it. Your suggestion does not say what I want to say; and to give a full explanation in the body of the text would interfere too much with the flow. So what I've done is to add a footnote trying to explain why I've included what I've included. Does this work; and is it satisfactory in this context? Peter I. Vardy (talk) ALT TEXT Check for typos and use of "the <feature>" instead of the more appropriate "a <feature>". Examples taken from the first 12 pics: Eastgate Clock: ...carries is clock... and ...carrying and inscription. Eccleston School: with a house to the left and a school to the right woulld be better. Waverton School: same as Eccleston School. Wrexham Road Farm: ...showing a farmhouse on the left and farm buildings... would be better. Peers Memorial, Ruthin: sqaure → square. I've dealt with the above and had another look through the alt text, making more amendments. Peter I. Vardy (talk) KEY TO GRADES Because listing is not a static process, this would be better worded as "—" denotes a work that is not graded. Done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) GOOGLE AND BING MAP LINKS ...are working correctly. REFS (in all cases, I'm using the current ref number as at 13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)) [9], [14]: needs pp. [52]: needs a space between Wrexham, and Monday. [79]: page number typo. [122]: needs p. In Billy Hobby's Well, you can replace the unnamed ref to P&H page 160 with <ref name=ph160/>, as you are already using it at 5–9 Northgate Street. Same for Warburton School and Church House, Warburton, which both use P&H page 376 with unnamed refs. All fixed. Peter I. Vardy (talk) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for all the detailed comments and advice. I'm always surprised that when you think you've checked everything, you haven't! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC) All changes look fine. I'm happy with the explanation provided in the footnote regarding "major" and "unusual". Hope to add comments about the table itself and the notes tomorrow (probably lunchtime), but I don't think much will need changing. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Apologies that I couldn't do this on Friday as expected. Here are my comments (mostly minor stuff) on the table itself: TABLE I'll go through from the top. Boteler Grammar School The school was a building in brick with stone dressings having a central tower with a pyramidal roof. Awkward ("the school was a building..."). Perhaps The school was built of brick with stone dressings, and had.... Also, the "Corporation Works Department": was that for the Development Corporation of the New Town by any chance? If so, suggest a piped link to that article. (If you can't find info to support that in the refs, don't worry.) Text amended as suggested. The Corporation Works Department would have been that of the town or borough (not sure which) council; the Warrington Development Corporation came later. Billy Hobby's Well Blurb reads as though the spring was built for the 2nd M. of w. Try Douglas' work, for the 2nd Marquess of Westminster, consists.... Done St Werburgh Chambers, Chester and St Werburgh's Mount, Chester Do you have any more info. on who G. Hodgkinson was? The name on its own leaves the reader wondering. Perhaps just add his client in one of the blurbs. No idea. I've added "his client" to both blurbs (because of sorting). Aldford Cheese Factory Shame about its obscurity. I had a look on Google and found little as well (although apparently the Flintshire Record Office holds/held a copy of its Rules and Regulations book from 1890!). Frustrating. I included it because it was a second cheese factory, and not Douglas' usual sphere of work (although I suspect its architecture would have been "typically" Douglas, as is the Balderton factory). Cottage Hospital Check whether this is it; if so, you can add the coordinates. Even more frustrating. The present community hospital looks like this, obviously modern and not Douglas. Its address is Ash Grove. Hubbard (Buildings of Wales) says "now l. [left] into GWERNAFFIELD ROAD and past Douglas's COTTAGE HOSPITAL ..." The community hospital is some 300m from the nearest part of Gwernaffield Road. But there are recent references to "Mold Cottage Hospital" - minutes of meetings and reports of deaths. I suspect that Douglas' hospital has closed (does it still exist?) and has been replaced by the community hospital. "Gwernaffield Road" added to location and notes amended. Grosvenor Club and North and South Wales Bank frieze containing sounds odd. Try "with" instead. Done Castle Hotel, Conwy Use of the passive voice makes it unclear what work Douglas did: was it the whole remodelling? Reworded. Does this work? School Does Hubbard have any more info about who William Jones was? (Don't worry if not.) No. Included because of its unusual distance from Douglas' office. Lyceum, Port Sunlight Diapering has a broken wilikink. Corrected (sorry, thought I had already done this). Public baths, Chester Mixed singular and plural ("were"; "is"). Wording amended. Eastgate Clock The first sentence is a sentence fragment, which can be eliminated by putting a comma after Jubilee or (better) adding something like This was at the start. Wording amended. 30 Bridge Street, Chester Passive voice; clarify whether Douglas was responsible for the original building or the rebuilding. Wording amended. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Responded to the above. All OK? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased to be able to Support this nomination following today's changes. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments The lead image caption is lacking somewhat, could you expand it a little? Expanded "His designs included new churches, alterations to and restoration of existing churches, church furnishings, new houses and alterations to existing houses, and a variety of other buildings, including shops, banks, offices, schools, memorials and public buildings." for me, this has a couple too many lead ons... "and alterations to existing..." then " and a variety of", then "and public buildings"... I think this could be split in half and made more elegant. Sentence split. Not sure how to make it more elegant without distorting the content and meaning; can you help? "he appointed his assistant" reads a little odd too, he appointed "an" assistant? Then you say "as a partner"? Assistant or partner, in general terms these are different... Sorry, don't understand the problem. Douglas' biographer says "Fordham ...was an assistant in Douglas's office at the time of being taken into partnership". (Hubbard, 1991, p. 6) I thought this was common practice; for someone to work for a principal as an assistant and, if and when appropriate, to be taken into partnership. This is what happened in Fordham's case. Not a major problem. I just wondered if it should be worded "he appointed an assistant", as it reads a little better for me, but it's just a personal opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC) OK, I've changed it to "an". Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC) "wealthy and powerful patrons" wealthy I can kind of assume, "powerful", needs explanation I think... Are you suggesting that some of the patrons were not powerful, or do you think I should explain their wealth? Is there some doubt that the Duke of Westminster, Gladstone and Lever were men who exerted power? I think that to spell this out in the lead would be distracting - and that's what blue links are for. No doubt at all for me, but I was thinking of those who are unaware of these gentlemen's "power" or the nature thereof. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I think I'll leave it; the info is only a click (or two) away. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Date col doesn't sort properly. I am puzzled. They sort OK (for me) in date order, but not in reverse date order. So far as I can tell, I've used the same system as I used for List of houses and associated buildings by John Douglas and it seems to work there. Have I missed something? Can you (or anyone) help? Seems okay in IE7, but on Safari I had problems. At least I did last night... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC) On my screen (1024 px wide), there are at least three "spare" images at the bottom of the list. I would not have understood this had I not bought a new laptop a couple of weeks ago. The list was compiled on my "old" PC with what was then a standard screen (not sure of its px size). On this screen the strip of images ends opposite around the 1872 date, below which is white space. On the wide screen of the laptop they extend below the bottom of the list by almost five images. So I guess everyone will have some white space somewhere - cannot please everyone..... Indeed. I just thought you may not have realised. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC) And in IE7 on widescreen, it's just 1½ images spare. Browsers!!!!! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments and the trouble you have taken. I have addressed them all; some I hope to your satisfaction, while the others are open to further discussion. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Are you happy (enough) with the amendments? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support a very nice piece of work... well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringoldtalkcontribs 18:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

*Comments I know some of these are styled from all these lists, but I think the points still apply, and perhaps should be applied to all of them. Could you remove the stubby sentence under the key section and simply move the citation to the "Grade" header, or make it a general citation? Done. Could that section just be called "Key", also, similar to the large number of Key'd lists with such titles? Done. Speaking of section titles, the table needs it's own section header as it isn't part of the key at all. Done. Doesn't the "See also" link at the top simply belong in a "See also" section? List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Clergy and such don't all link back to Alumni of Jesus College, Oxford, nor do any other similar sets of lists I know of (National Japanese treasures, baseball record lists, etc, etc). "See also" section created and hatnote deleted. The images currently spill far below the table, at least on my resolution settings (and I have a pretty healthy sized monitor) leaving loads of white space. I would say either some images would have to go (which would be a pity) or let them spill into the references (and see also section above) (To answer this point and the point below) The white space problem was discussed under the comments made by User:Hassocks5489 above. Whatever you do will produce some white space on some browsers and/or some monitors. Anyway I've taken your suggestion and re-arranged the strip of images so that it overlaps into the (new) "See also" and the "References" sections. This looks much better on the wide-screen monitor, but produces a long white strip on my older monitor. By doing this, it automatically made the references into two columns on the wide-screen, but only a single column on the old monitor. I've therefore changed it to {{Reflist|2}} which gives two columns on both monitors. Incidentally List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Clergy uses {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} and that results in three columns on my widescreen (and there's lots of white space too!). On the references, {{Reflist}} columns notes warns against using more than two columns for fear of small screens. I see you've instead used the em width so it fits to your monitor, but why not just use 2 columns to make space for those images? Staxringold talkcontribs 04:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Points above addressed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Support (although there's one very minor issue below, that shouldn't hold up promotion). Mm40 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) Why does the key have a heading while the table doesn't? Also, why no TOC? Fixed above. Not sure, but "during the period of the Gothic Revival" might be better Don't agree; the Gothic Revival was a style of architecture, not a period in time. Is there any way to explain "articled"? Click on the link; to try to explain in the lead would disrupt the text IMO. "appointed an assistant, Daniel Porter Fordham, as a partner" this is either unclear or redundant: was Fordham a former assistant who became a partner, or are you using "assistant" and "partner" as synonyms? If the latter is the case, you should take out "as a partner" They are not synonyms. I have added "former" before "assistant" and linked "partner" to business partner. Hope this now makes it clear. Link "North Wales" in the second paragraph? "Cheshire" is liked in the first sentence. Done. I think "was further afield, for example in" would sound better as "was further afield, such as in" Changed to "in regions including"; not sure which is best. How about "on or related to churches or houses" instead of "on churches or houses, or on structures relating to churches or houses"? Agreed. I think "in a biography by Edward Hubbard" is better than "in the biography by Edward Hubbard"; the current version implies the reader already knows about it, or it was already discussed There is only one biography; hence "the". To avoid confusion I have changed it to "Edward Hubbard's biography". Should "as follows" in the key have a colon after it? No longer relevant following above changes. Can you clarify that the "Date" column is the date built? Perhaps change the column name to "Date built" It is; could it be anything else? I'm not sure that adding "built" does anything - what do others think? Purely stylistic, but you might consider centering the first three columns Not convinced about the first two columns. I'll centre the date column, but would welcome consensus on the other two. I'm sure this has been brought up in the previous FLCs on lists of this style, but is there some way you can eliminate some of the white space? I'm thinking {{Image gallery}} (a normal gallery doesn't support ALT text, see Wikipedia:ALT#Galleries) See above. In the "Notes" for Billy Hobby's Well, what does "built" mean at the end? Also, there's an extra space before the period A typo following a previous edit; fixed. Can the note for the "Triumphal Arch" mention Edward's name? Done. In the notes for the Dutch Tea House, you might make the line to Cruciform#Cruciform Plan over "cruciform plan" rather than just the first word Done. "It has not been possible to determine" → "It is not possible to determine" I have not changed this. It may be possible for someone else to determine these facts; I have failed. I would rather leave it open for a future edit rather than to suggest finality. When you say "it was moved to its present site", some clarification on where it was moved to would be nice, even just directions Tried to clarify this; does it work OK? I don't think the lozenge link in the Church House's row is the right article It is the correct link; it refers to a diamond or rhomboid shape. I have added "shape" in an attempt to clarify. "with living accommodation above in" I think "accommodation" should be plural "Accommodations" does not fit comfortably in British English; changed to "quarters", although I am not sure that is the best. Link "Port Sunlight" in the "Notes" for Dell Bridge? Done. At the end of the notes for 5–9 and 11–13 Northgate Street, please order refs 118 and 18 numerically Fixed. "built by Douglas in Bath Street" should "in" be "on"? "in" is OK in British English. In note 1, why don't you put the external link on the title (Douglas, John (1830–1911))? Also "Retrieved" is capitalized while it isn't in others notes, and there is no "on" included after "retrieved" in the other refs Fixed. You might put "major" in quotes in note 8. Done. Notes 116 and 117 need publishers Fixed. None of the {{Harvnb}} references are working. I know, and I don't know how to fix it. Can anyone advise? I have fixed these. When using {{Harvnb}} in conjunction with {{cite book}}, {{citation}} and similar, the parameter |ref=harv has to be used in the citation template to make the clickable link work. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 16:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for that. The single author links work (Hubbard), but the multiple ones don't seem to (Hubbard and Pevsner, Newman and Pevsner).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC) I think I have fixed the multiple author links. I don't know how I did it though, as I have just returned from a beer festival and am editing "under the influence". This is the diff. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC) You've done it! Hope you slept well. The only "problem" is that it produces ampersands in the refs, of which I thought the MoS disapproves; it must be a quirk of the template. Nevertheless many thanks.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Typo in ref 94 (wrong year) Whoops - corrected. Under Bibliography, some publishers are linked while others aren't. Fixed Under Bibliography, the third and fourth books have commas after their years while the others have periods. Now that's a puzzle. They are all based in citation templates and I cannot spot any significant differences. Can anyone explain/fix it? The third book listed needs a location of publication Done. The authors for the last book should be formatted as such: "Hubbard, Edward; Pevsner, Nikolaus" Don't agree. This is the order on the title page of the book and is correct. Pevsner was the prime author; Hubbard was his assistant. Sorry for being so picky, but I'll gladly support once these issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Some notes have full stops while others don't; be consistent

• Sorry couldn't find them. Please specify.

• None of the references formatted with {{Citation}} have full stops. Mm40 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, my misunderstanding; I thought you meant the Notes column, which I scoured and found no absentees. Now I realise it was the Notes under References; the full stops have been added.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the last two reviewers and the trouble you've taken. I've just been away and have a few things to catch up with, but will try to answer the comments in the next few days. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think I have addressed the points made above, although not necessarily solved all the problems. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - a lot of my portion of the review is in what Mm40 wrote in his review, I'll be glad to re-review once their comments are resolved. So I will revisit then to avoid conflict and repetition.Truco ₅₀₃ 02:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.