Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/The Tower House/archive1

Resolved concerns from Squeamish Ossifrage

archived specific issues

In the Furniture section, there seems no rhyme or reason with capitalization. "The Red Bed" in caption; "The Red bed" in table. "The Crocker dressing table" in the table; "Crocker Dressing Table" in text. "Dog Cabinet" in text; "Dog cabinet" in the table. I'm sure that some of the inconsistencies are in sources (when is the type of furniture capitalized?), but there's clearly some work to be done here. Done. A very fair criticism. I've followed Handley-Read and Crook and capitalized both parts where a specific piece of furniture is being described, e.g. the Zodiac Settle, the Red Bed. Hope this works. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Checking to make sure nothing was missed before striking, but this was one of my most serious outstanding objections, and I'm glad to see it addressed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC) The Cecil Higgins Art Gallery is the sort of thing where I suspect that going publisher-only for the citation was the right choice. However... for one there, there seems to be some malformatting of the title and/or url there. Also, this appears to be a dead link. Should have been more specific, this is reference #41 at current, and is still in need of some attention. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Am looking at this. You're right, it doesn't work. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Fixed it myself. The url was malformed by an errant space, but the website itself isn't responding either. So I corrected the typo and added an archive link. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC) The mention of Fame being stolen takes place well before any explanation of what Fame was. I'm not sure the best way to fix this. Similarly, should you explicitly note that the reason the Goddess of Fate doesn't sit there anymore is that it was the piece mentioned earlier as stolen? Not sure where the draw the line between clarity and redundancy there. Done - I think. Yep, I think so too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC) "The house is also referenced in Matthew Williams's William Burges, published 2004, and in Great Houses of London by James Stourton and photographer Fritz von der Schulenburg published in 2012, which includes some recent photographs." This sentence wanders around, is almost impossible to read quickly, and uses the dreaded recent to boot. I've addressed this point with this edit. Please let me know if it's insufficient. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC) There's inconsistencies in how you cite page ranges: "Crook 2013, pp. 327–328." / "Crook 2013, pp. 338–40." / "Crook 2013, pp. 306–341." / "Cherry & Pevsner 2002, pp. 510-11." / "Stourton, pp. 220–228." You can go with abbreviated ranges or full numbers on both ends, but need to apply a consistent style (personally, I like writing them all out, but my preferences do not rules make). I don't mind fixing these, but I'm not sure which style Dr. Blofeld prefers. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Okay. I think I've fixed them all now. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Many thanks indeed. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC) The English Heritage publisher is fine (I think), but I don't see where English Heritage list is the website/work name. Should be Historic England, I think. British History Online is the website, and should be italicized. The publisher, if you care to include it, is the Institute of Historical Research. BBC News Online is the website; BBC is the publisher. I do note that there's some tension between our citation templates that italicize websites and our article titling policies, which do not. But that's neither here nor there; FAC is for implementing standards, not agreeing on them! I will note that this one is styled with cite news instead of cite web, which makes its formatting appear slightly different. Whether you want to change it to cite web for aesthetics is at your discretion, as either template is applicable here, and mixed-use of citation type 1 templates is fully permissible. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Cnplus.co.uk is certainly not the publisher, nor the website name. The website is Construction News and you can safely omit the holding-company publisher. No objection to the Victoria and Albert Museum links; again, I think publisher-only is the right way to cite these. I'm fine with the British Museum one, too. With the Art Fund source, I can go either way with how you treat this, but being extremely pedantic for a moment, the website is Art Fund and the organization (and publisher) is The Art Fund. Either way is fine with me, and I certainly wouldn't use both (to avoid redundancy). Wikilink at your discretion. The note referenced to royalcollection.org.uk is a mess. As best as I can tell from consulting the source, the title should be "The House of William Burges, ARA". The publisher is Royal Collection Trust (and there's no distinct website name that would not be redundant). I fixed this one. Just let me know if I missed any parameters. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I've fixed these from "The English Heritage publisher is fine" to "With the Art Fund source". Rationalobserver (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Why is Betjeman and Green just in the Notes and not a Reference (convention here seems to be to make book-format stuff references)? I put Betjeman and Green into notes. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Any page number for the Ferriday reference (especially since you're tossing around things like "pioneering" in the prose it references)? I'll get this. Done. Adding one: The Burges article refers to coverage of this house in a 1893 publication published by The Builder, discussing the prior 50 years of architecture. But this article's "Architectural coverage" skips from a work by a family member, in 1886, to the start of a modern reconsideration of the structure, in 1963. Any reason to omit the 1893 piece? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC) A very good point and I have the reference to the article in The Builder. Actually, it's quite important and I should have put it in originally. Thanks for picking it up. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Now done. KJP1 (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Page number for the Williams citation? I'll get this. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC) I don't like the quote in the lead. I know that's not an actionable objection, but the article leans pretty heavily on Crook throughout (probably by necessity). I don't think there's a compelling reason to reinforce that with a direct quotation there. There were three originally..♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Ew. I still don't like it. Barring exceptional circumstances, I just don't feel that specific, direct quotes serve as appropriate parts of a summary, especially for an article of this length. But I'm not going to stomp my feet over it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Generally I agree that quotes are best avoided in the lede, but in this case his quote is an excellent summary of the style.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Accepted as a compromise; not my editing work, after all. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Link Bath stone. Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC) "Burges bought the lease on the plot of land in 1875 and by 1878 the house was largely complete, with construction undertaken by...": Clause order presents a problem. As written, implies that construction was undertaken in 1878, when the house was nearly complete. You may need to split this sentence up into order to correct the problem, which wouldn't be an altogether bad thing anyway. How does this look? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC) I'd combine "By 1878 the house was largely complete." with the following sentence, perhaps with "although". I'll also continue to hate the use of "innumerable" in that sentence. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Done ([1]). Rationalobserver (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "innumerable items": I'm sure it was actually possible to count them. It's a figure of speech and quite appropriate I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I have to disagree—especially when "numerous" is sitting right there. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC) In general, I'm not fond of metaphorical or poetic language in Wikipedia's voice, because it can be subject to misinterpretation by readers. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "Its most prominent member, the artist Frederic, Lord Leighton": It's probably safe to assume that the most prominent member of an art colony is an artist. Perhaps just "Its most prominent member, Frederic, Lord Leighton,..."? Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC) " living in Holland Park Road and Melbury Road": This may just be an ENGVAR thing. Do you "live in" a road in the UK? Across the pond, we live "on" roads. If you're an experienced editor Squeamish you should be well aware that us Brits live "in" streets and don't float "on" top of them like in the US..♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC) There are plenty of experienced editors who don't know every detail of different ENGVARs—I've had very experience British editors fly at me in a rage over NAmEngVARs they simply refused to believe—which is why Squeamish very sensibly asked for confirmation. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC) I think you're just jealous of my flying citadel-home. (Alternatively, I may have avoided copyediting for a British English article previously.) Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "In the following twelve years, his buildings and, beyond architecture, his metalwork, jewellery, furniture and stained glass, led Crook to claim "Burges outsoars Pugin as the greatest art-architect of the Gothic Revival."": This sentence needs divided up or reorganized or something. Maybe just simplifying the categories of achievements to "his architecture, metalwork, jewellery, furniture, and stained glass," would help? WP:MOSQUOTE encourages us to avoid linking from within direct quotations. If you're going to use a direct quote from Crook here, you might need to let readers know who Pugin was first, or else see if consensus will grant an exception here to link Augustus Pugin. Alternatively, paraphrase Crook and avoid the direct quote entirely. How does this look? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC) I don't think that's a perfect sentence, but it's improved enough that I have no further need to quibble. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "But by 1875, Burges's short career was largely over.": Well... maybe. He spent 6 years without a major comission, but if he hadn't died young, that might not necessarily have been the end of his career. I think that you need a citation to make the claim that directly. It's fine as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn. I'd do this differently, but I'll concede to this one as a style preference. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Link ground rent. Consider calling it "yearly" ground rent, or something, to avoid the stilted "per annum". I don't see the point in linking it, and I don't think per annum is stilted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Ground rent isn't a phrase that's particularly common in some American jurisdictions (including mine), and it's nice to get links into land law articles from somewhere else. Of course, I may just be biased, because one of my current editing projects has me reading a bunch of land law journals. Not withdrawing either part of this suggestion, per se, but it probably shouldn't be read as actionable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC) OK, as you wish!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "Burges used many artists and craftsmen": I would prefer "employed" here, but this is a matter of editorial discretion more than anything. Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC) "...which remained unfinished at his death.": I'd move this. This paragraph and the next discuss the construction and decoration of the house; that it remained unfinished when Burges died is important, but is presented out of order. Disagree, it's a very brief mention (and appropriate) and in no way disrupts the chronology.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I guess so... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Any reason for the paragraph break between Hatfield's bronze and the murals of Marks and Weeks? I was expecting the end of the listing of contributors when I saw the break, but was wrong. On the other hand, I may just prefer longer paragraphs than others? Yes, it should be in the same paragraph I think as it's covering the contributors. Although there is a case that it might be better to place all the detail on the construction and builders in the architecture section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I would not be opposed to a significant restructuring that moved the builders to the architecture section and made the history largely a discussion of ownership and use, although that's a more dramatic reordering of text (and might warrant changing section order, to boot). No requirement to do so, obviously. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Link frieze. Done. "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.": This long sentence is a mess, and I don't think it's actually grammatical. I don't really even have an easy suggestion to fix this one. I trimmed it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Vastly improved. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "amongst them": "including"? Done. "which are immortalised": Will I start a manual of style fight by suggesting that the family pets get a "who" rather than a "which" here? This has been reworded so no longer applies. You say when he died, then you give information about the situation before he died, and his last visitors. You haven't linked Pullan outside of the lead, and should do so here, when he inherits the house. Linked. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "Betjeman considered the house too costly to take on, with a potential liability for £10,000 of renovation work upon the expiry of the lease which he declined to extend.": The small problem here is that there should be a comma after "lease". The large problem is that I really don't think I understand this sentence. If he were liable for renovation costs when the lease expired, how did letting the lease expire avoid that? I think I'm missing something. It seems that way yes. I've reworded. There's quite a few details missing on how the property was left and what really happened, I said this to KJP the other day. This is all we could find about it though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Better somewhat, and given the limitations of what sources apparently have, not worth my focusing on. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "From 1962 to 1966, the Tower House stood empty and prey to vandalism and neglect.": I think it would need to be "fell prey to", although I'm not sure that's the right tone. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Jane Turnbull is the only person of that name being discussed, so she can be simply "Turnbull" on second mention. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "spirit of gothic": Gothic was capitalized in the source and should be here. Done. Maybe link to French Gothic architecture here? Done. I'm not sure you need to name Stamp and Amery's book in the prose. Done. Linking within direct quotes is discouraged, but consider a footnote or something that glosses tourelle if you're going to use this quote this way. All I know of the term is that it is something like a turret; there's a distinction being drawn here that's lost on me, and probably a lot of other people. Done. I don't think floor plan needs to be hyphenated. Done. "...but the approach Burges took to its construction was on the grand scale, the architect R. Norman Shaw remarking that the concrete foundations were suitable "for a fortress".": Might not hurt to break this into two sentences. I had to backtrack in reading once I realized that Shaw's comments were later analysis, rather than some information relating to how Burges took to construction on the grand scale. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "This approach": Second "approach" in two lines. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC) A contrast between the small floor plan and Burges's "grand scale" approach is set up, but other than really big foundations, it's not clear to me from this paragraph what Burges did to make the place seem or feel bigger, which is what I assume was intended here. Withdrawn upon re-reading. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "the art historian and first serious scholar of Burges Charles Handley-Read": way too long of a description to preface the name and still be comfortable reading. Having Burges's name abut Handley-Read's doesn't help. Consider instead: "Charles Hanley-Read, art historian and the first serious scholar of Burges,". Although upon reflection, the claim that he's the "first serious scholar" of Burges needs a citation. Without a cite for "first serious Burges scholar" I made this edit. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Link overmantel. Sure, it just redirects to a crappy stub that lumps it with overdoor at the moment, but it still provides some context for the reader. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "A mosaic floor in the entrance hall is designed as a labyrinth": Surely it has a labyrinth pattern, or something of that nature, and is not literally "designed as a labyrinth". Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "Burges's bedroom overlooks the garden, with the theme of sea creatures.": I would prefer "Burges's bedroom, with a theme of sea creatures, overlooks the garden." Unless that's a very odd garden... It's an Octopus's Garden ;-).. Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Which explains why Jimmy Page found a little Beatle on the wall! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Mention the dogs on the Red Bed here along with Sleeping Beauty? Consider linking Sleeping Beauty, as you have the other fairy tale titles. Has been linked.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Link roundel. Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Who is Stourton? I've introduced him at the first mention. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Is it possible for the day and night nurseries to be labeled on the plan? Withdrawn. Based on other comments, it seems this is beyond the reach of sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "Burges and friends": "and his friends", although I wonder if this is another ENGVAR issue. I think part of the quote is unnecessary here so I've paraphrased and changed this in doing so, better?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Pipe a link to arcade (architecture). Done. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "Stylised poppies covered the panels of a cupboard": Tense intentional here? That is to say, do they no longer do so? I'd guess that the cupboard has probably been moved to a museum and no longer exists in the house, so yes I think it's correct, unless KJP knows any better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC) If the cupboard is believed to still exist (and still has its poppies), it would be more correct to say "Stylised poppies cover the panels of a cupboard that set next to his bed." (It no longer sets there, but the poppies still cover the panels.) I'm not sure what the MOS indicates when there's just no way to know; I've had quibbles with this about probably-lost-but-maybe-not film topics elsewhere. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Done. I'd list Minshall's writing before his son, just to avoid any chance of someone misreading Merlin as the author. Or, frankly, since neither the elder Minshall nor his works seem notable, omit them [the books, that is]? Done. Moved, not removed, the books. I have no idea how the process of becoming a listed building works. Did someone (Graham, perhaps) instigate that, or is it just something that the bureaucracy makes happen from time to time? The latter. I assume that "Mrs. Graham" is the colonel's wife, and not the colonel. If the sources support it, perhaps when you introduce him, note that he lived there with his wife? Done. "paintings on his pieces of furniture, including on the Dog Cabinet and at the foot of the Red Bed.": This reads awkwardly, I think because there's some preposition-based problems with clause parity, but also because it's wordy. I think you could get away with "paintings on furniture pieces, including the Dog Cabinet and the foot of the Red Bed." I've reworded. Mostly better, but there's still a clause-structure problem that can be fixed by removing "at" (or other means that require more changes). With "such as", you should be able to replace the general category in the sentence ("various pieces of furniture") with each of the provided examples. The first one is fine (you get "paintings on the Dog Cabinet"). The other one gets you "paintings on at the foot of the Red Bed"). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC) I might restructure the Richard Harris / Liberace paragraph. Danny La Rue's visit must have occurred before Richard Harris's purchase. So perhaps discuss Liberace's interest in the property, the La Rue visit, Harris's purchase of the lease out from under Liberace, and then Harris's comment to La Rue? Hrm, I'm not sure I'm sold on that either, having written it... Withdrawn. I can't convince myself that it's a problem, so it's certainly not an actionable one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC) "The frontages come from the other townhouse Burges designed, the McConnochie House in Cardiff, for Lord Bute's engineer.": Can almost certainly replace Burges with he in this one, assuming the surrounding sentences stay the same. I'm not sure what to do with the bit at the end; if you remove the appositive phrase, this sentence reads "The frontages come from the other townhouse Burges designed for Lord Bute's engineer.", which is factually wrong. Are you certain this is incorrect? According to the Wikipedia page, (I know, it's not a reliable source), John McConnochie was Chief Engineer to the Bute Docks. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Erm, I needed to be more clear here. The problem is not implying that the McConnochie House was built for Lord Bute's engineer (it was). The problem is that the use of other combined with the clause structure can be read to imply that this house was as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Done - I hope, by the removal of the mention of who McConnochie was. It wasn't essential and readers can find out from the link. KJP1 (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC) "Above a basement, the two storeys of the house are surmounted by a roof garret.": This is an awkward way to note that there's a basement. It makes it seem as if it were special that the garret is above a basement, when it could be no other way. Is there a difference between a "roof garret" and a normal garret? Is the garret the floor that you label as "2nd floor" in the plan, later on? Link garret. Linked garret and omitted "roof". Rationalobserver (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC) The introductory "above a basement" still reads very strangely to me, but if that's not the case for others, feel free to ignore me on this one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC) You introduce the door, including mention of the entrance hall beyond. Then, you discuss the letterbox that would have been on the door, then back to the entrance hall. I'd spare mention of the hall beyond until you were done talking about fixtures of the door itself, such as the letterbox. Withdrawn. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC) "bronze-covered door" appears twice in three lines of text. These refer to two different doors, so I'm not sure what to do here without removing detail. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Obviously, the goal isn't to lose information, just not to duplicate prose. Perhaps acknowledging the similarity would help, something like "The garden entrance's door, also covered in bronze..."? I'm not sold on that wording, but it's a place to start. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Is this acceptable? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Yep, and probably better than my suggestion anyway. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "The stained glass in the hall and at the head of the staircase is by Saunders and Co., to designs drawn by Lonsdale.": This sentence is almost identical to one appearing in the History section. Given that this section is about the interior appearance and not design, I don't think this is what needs to be said about the stained glass here. @KJP1: I was thinking that maybe details of the team belongs in the architecture section not the history actually. I was thinking about that recently. Any thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Agreed and Done. - I think it sits best in the History section and doesn't add anything to the description of the hall. I'll remove. KJP1 (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC) "Figures within the chimneypiece represent parts of speech, noun, verb, preposition": Are these four distinct figures? I ask because, obviously, the latter three are all themselves parts of speech. Done - I hope. Its complicated, to say the least. Crook describes the chimneypiece as depicting "The Dispersion of the Parts of Speech at the Time of the Tower of Babel. King Nimrod presides, with Queen Grammar below sending forth the parts of speech on their journey. First the Pronouns, blowing trumpets, the Queen Verb with two Articles as pages." And it goes on and on. Does the revised wording work for you? Substantially improved! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC) In the dining room, "The tiles depict fairy stories", but it isn't until later in the paragraph that we learn "The walls are covered with Devonshire marble, surmounted by glazed picture tiles". My first guess was that these illustrations were on the floor, like the earlier labyrinth. Done. Third "surmounted" in the article, which is one (or more) too many. I believe firehood is more common as a single word than a hyphenated compound. Consider linking it (even if it's just a poorly-described section of chimney at the moment). I disagree with linking something just for the sake of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC) So do I, actually. This isn't a common feature of American chimney construction, and I wasn't familiar with the term. Since our link targets are terrible, though, I suppose you have a point. I do still think it should be a single word, however. I see that your source hyphenates, but that's the exception (Harris's exhaustive Dictionary of Architecture and Construction has it as firehood, for example). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn. I think firehood is more correct, but since the source has a hyphen and our article is a forsaken wasteland, I'm not going to quibble. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Both the plan and the exterior photo suggest that there's a room in the tower above the 2nd floor level. Anything mention it? Personally, I love neat little rooms like that. There's also probably an architectural term for the random room at the top of a tower, but since I apparently don't even know the difference between a tourelle and a turret, I won't speculate. I couldn't find anything about it. Presumably an attic or something. Yes I know what you mean, I was intrigued about the upper floor of Bramshill House but couldn't find anything on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Sad, but probably not unexpected. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "A mosaic terrace was surrounded": Check tense. Is this not extant? I think it's because the marble seats are no longer there, KJP might confirm this. Yes - unfortunately, neither the seats nor the statue remain so the tense is right. Interestingly, Mr Page himself writes of the changes to the garden here [2]. KJP1 (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC) " In 1957 the Tower House had featured in the fifth episode of his BBC television series, An Englishman's Castle, and in a radio talk on Cardiff Castle Betjeman spoke of the architect and his foremost work: "a great brain has made this place. I don't see how anyone can fail to be impressed by its weird beauty ... awed into silence from the force of this Victorian dream of the Middle Ages."": Consider splitting into two sentences, since the (longish) quote appears to be unrelated to the TV series. Perhaps also give at least a year for the radio interview here, since there's no way to determine when it took place in context? Split into two, but I don't know the year of the radio interview. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

archived general comments

I'd like to take the time to read into the prose a little more. Currently neutral on promotion, although most of the above represents very quick fixes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you very much indeed for your very comprehensive review of the sources which I shall address this evening. If you have time to review the prose, that would also be much appreciated. Hopefully, by the end, you will be able to support the article's promotion. KJP1 (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I'm stopping here, just before starting the Architecture section. There's a lot of copyediting to be done, I think. More than a few long, awkward sentences, and at least a few cases of information conveyed contrary to chronological order in sections ostensibly organized by chronology. Again, a lot of this can be fixed, but, for the moment, lean oppose on prose and reference grounds. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC) More to follow. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Stopping here, for real this time. Until the Great Furniture Capitalization Issue is settled, I don't want to touch that section, and I think I've made this section quite long enough for now anyway. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)