Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bramshill House/archive1

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) 02:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC) [1].

---

Bramshill House

Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most important Jacobean country houses in England. The current house was built in the early 17th century by Baron Edward la Zouche of Harringworth, but was partly destroyed by fire a few years later and subsequently redeveloped. The Italian Renaissance, which became popular in England during the late 16th century, is evident in its design. Some of the interior tapestries are quite remarkable pieces. It became a Grade I listed building in 1952, after which it became a police college.

This underwent vigorous research a while back, involving myself, Yngvadottir and Drmies, and Eric Corbett helped copyedit it up to beyond GA standard. It's been sitting for a while but I've recently checked to see if it is all there and it really appears to be very comprehensive. Thanks to a pretty decent peer review it has been further improved to the point I believe it is now ready to be nominated. Cheers.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Support – as one of the pretty decent peer reviewers I thought this article of FA standard then, and think so now. Meets all prose criteria, in my my view, and though I don't generally comment on images, being daunted by WP's arcane rules, the article is most pleasing to the eye. Seems to me to tick every box for FA. Tim riley talk 20:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Tim for some excellent comments during the review and your support! Yes some of the external images are very good but unfortunately I couldn't get hold of free interior images to show off the wonderful tapestries. I did contact the college. The black and white ones in the commons I checked and aren't free.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, without any reservations. Eric Corbett 20:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Eric for your support and the copyediting work you did at an earlier stage which has really paid off in getting to FAC!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Well researched article about an important building.--Ipigott (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Ipigott for your support and recent copyedits!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Aa77zz

Ref 77 "Borrell & Cashinella 1975" is not in the Bibliography. A google search finds Crime in Britain Today which seems a strange source for the area of the lake. Aa77zz (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I accidentally removed it during the peer review earlier today. I've restored it, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Support per my peer review of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Wehwalt!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, as per my peer review. Excellent article; well done to all concerned - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated Schro, thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Floor plans could be slightly larger
• File:11thLordZouche.jpg needs US PD tag
• File:Ground_floor_Bramshill_House.jpg needs US PD tag, as does File:First_Floor_Bramshill_House.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

All done, cheers Nikkimaria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I gave this article a long peer review, during which numerous issues were raised and resolved. I have only a handful of further points:

• The peer review needs to be properly closed – this has only been half done so far.
• The captions for the two floor plans should be dated (to the 1880s I think). I imagine that the current floor layouts have been updated somewhat.
  • Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• I am slightly disappointed that you haven't taken up my suggestion that Shaw's error in describing the house as Elizabethan rather than Jacobean be rewarded wih a well-deserved ((sic}}, but I won't press the matter.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton:, many thanks for your support and excellent comments during the peer review which much improved this article. Admittedly I spent quite some time trying to find the Elizabethan remark to address what you said and for some reason couldn't find it, I was going to ask you to add it yourself, can you please do so? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support from EddieHugh

A media check has been done by someone else; I've checked online sources 22, 23, 27, 37 and 67 for fidelity to source and plagiarism. All of my points below have been dealt with. So, I'm happy to support based on the FA criteria. EddieHugh (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

All of my comments have now been dealt with. EddieHugh (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Bramshill appears to have been an important local sporting and social venue, as numerous paintings and prints depict games taking place on the lawn." Needs a source.
• "with a number of upper-class men, women and children as spectators". A source stating that would be preferable.
• "Right: A fencing bout." Main text states "practice".

Some good points on the sporting events. A lot of what is known is based on paintings and prints of the house. There's quite a few depicting sports and events at the house in a history that is rather sparse in sources. To adequately support my statement I'd need to cite many of the pictures as I can't see a source which discusses them. Does it seem like OR here? I've merged mention of the painting into the sentence and removed "important" anyway♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that "Bramshill appears to have been an important local sporting and social venue" is OR if it's based only on the existence of paintings. No doubt such images were typically depictions of real scenes, but they could be imagined scenes. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well the cricket info supports the statement and I think there's enough coverage in depictions to make it stick.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe changing from "as" in "a local sporting and social venue, as numerous paintings" to something not implying (otherwise unsubstantiated) evidence would do the job. EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Bramshill House was "in a poor state of repair" but that it was inconceivable that the police college should move given the investment already made in the site.[37]" This wording is too close to the original ("Bramshill house is in a poor state of repair [...] the investment that has already been made in the current site makes it inconceivable that the college should move"). Rephrase or use more quotation marks to avoid plagiarism.

Yes, the "inconceivable" word might make it seem like that as the other is a quote, I've reworded.

• "fourteen different ghosts". "different" is redundant.

Not sure I agree as the same ghosts can apparently manifest themselves in different ways but I've removed.

• "a 18-acre". Should be "an".

Done.

• "the wider 490 acres (200 ha) medieval park". Change: "490-acre".

I'm using the conversion template, can you find a way to avoid "acres"?

Convert the other way and use "acre" (copy the 18-acre style immediately above it), if you're content to do the conversion that way. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• "This includes the 25 acres (10 ha) of early 17th-century formal gardens near the house, the wider 490 acres (200 ha) medieval park, landscaped from the 17th to the 20th century, which includes 250 acres (100 ha) of woodland[78] and buildings including an icehouse and a folly known as Conduit House". Which features are parts of larger units would be clearer if semi-colons were used (e.g., "This includes: w; x, which y; z"). This would make it easier to read, as would avoiding repetition of 'include'.

Reworded, I'd prefer not to use semicolons.

• "Location of Bramshill House in Hampshire". Mention that Hampshire is the white bit (if that's the case)?

I think it's obvious, especially given the window highlighter outlining the county which is the same shape. Wouldn't it look daft saying "shaded part in white" after Hampshire?

If that's common, then it's fine. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Much of the work, most notably the entrance, was executed by German builders". "most notably" looks out of place. Is it notable that the entrance was built by Germans, or is the entrance particularly notable in itself?

Removed the middle part.

• "It now houses the National Police Library." "now" is always hazardous; it's unlikely that the police library is still there.

Removed.

• Is the building itself a bit off level, or do the first few photos just make it look that way? (Not vital, as this is a nomination of the article rather than the photos.)More later. EddieHugh (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Not that I know of, might be the photograph.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Continuing...

• "2,500-acre wooded park". May as well convert this one, too.

Still to do. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Can't see what you're referring to.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Convert to ha. EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• There's variation in units: sometimes "ft", sometimes "feet"; check for others, too.

Still to do (2 in Original house), unless there's a reason not to. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• "steward's room at Windsor". "Windsor Castle"?

I'd have thought it obvious from previous mention but OK.

• "bought the property from Sir Stephen Thornhurst". Are you using the full name because it's the first mention in the para? It's full in the previous sentence, so could be shortened.

Well, it was the previous section, but I've shortened to just Thornhurst.

• "In 1347 he obtained" cf. "In March 1605,[12] Edward la Zouche". Comma or no comma? Check all others, too.

I think it's necessary with the 1605 one, but with the 1347 the context of the sentence I think it's more appropriate without for flow. If anybody else insists that the 1347 sentence must have a comma then I'll consider it though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that they're used inconsistently ("In 1347 he obtained"; "In 1673 it was the property"; "In the 1880s the library"; "In 1935, the house"; "In the early 14th century, Sir John Foxley"), but no-one else seems to be concerned. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• "A house was earlier planned on the site". The chronology and plans are unclear here. When does "earlier" refer to, and was the proposal for the PoWales to live in it (what happened to the plan)?

Unknown I believe, all we know is that a house had been planned for him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Lord Zouche bought the property from Sir Stephen Thornhurst in 1605". Is the wikilink sufficient to indicate that the picture is of Z, not ST?

I think so, I think it's obvious, and clicking the link we'll soon find out!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• "the maids' chamber was of very high standard". "a very high standard" feels natural to me, but feel free to demur.

Agreed.

• "Edward la Zouche" (twice). If this is the short form of "Edward la Zouche, 11th Baron Zouche", can't it be even shorter?

Agreed.

• Consider putting Sporting events as a lower sub-heading than the others in the History section, as it's not chronological.

I disagree, the sporting events were prominent in the 17th-19th centuries in particular I believe, certainly belongs before 20th century material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Location. Would going from big to small be more logical (i.e. swap sentences 1 & 2 around)?

The location section? My thinking is that you want to describe its location as if providing direction to the property, so putting it in its wider geographical context and approach roads first and then inner lanes I think seems a better way to describe it, at least in the way that my brain works.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. But isn't the current arrangement: position relative to villages; position relative to towns; approach roads; internal? EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Tweaked as suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• "internal police training". What made it "internal"? Is there a less ambiguous alternative that could be used?

Good point. Presumably I think it is referring to training police who are already established rather than newbies, but I've removed as I agree it seems odd.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Ronald Nall-Cain's motto [...] was adopted". Adopted by what?

The motto was adopted by the police.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The Daily Mail reported the police". "reported that the" feels natural, etc., etc.

OK.

• "were criticised for lavish spending on the estate". Perhaps indicate when this happened, as the implication is that it was in the late 1980s, but it was actually later.

Added "subsequent".

• At the risk of sounding like a potential buyer of a small house, how many (bed)rooms does it have? I've got down as far as Architecture, so will continue later. EddieHugh (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for your points. I'm not sure, I could work it out from the 1880s plan, but then there lies the problem of what the police did to the building, were rooms merged or now have a different use? Judging by the ground floor rooms I'd guess they didn't touch anything technically as it is a Grade I property. If there's no source to support how many bedrooms it currently has then it's probably best avoided. Looking at the plan though I count seven bedrooms and one in the wing and one "bed chamber" if that counts as one, so I could say something like "As of the 1880s the house had eight or nine bedrooms" or "The plan drawn up in the 1880s indicates that the house had seven bedrooms, and another bedroom in the wing" and source it to Shaw's book on the page the plan is. I think that would acceptable, what do you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There's some relevant info in source 28, including "The mansion, which was built between 1605 and 1615, has 15 bedrooms, a long gallery, chapel, lounges, a mezzanine and a number of 'magnificent state rooms' which have now been converted into banqueting halls". It also summarises some recent additions in the grounds. Incorporating some of this stuff, especially if different from the old plans, would be good. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The other 7 or 8 bedrooms must be on the second floor then. I'll add some of this, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(Hopefully) final batch:

• "Much of the work was executed by German builders, part of the workforce which replaced the Italian artisans who had left England following the accession of Elizabeth I in 1558". Earlier, it's stated that the building began around 1605. It seems unlikely that people arriving around 1558 would still be working then. Is there more clarity available on this?

Still to do. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The plan of the house is unusual, partly because of its incorporation of the earlier building; it". Is "it" the house or the earlier one?

It is the house, yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The southern façade, unique for the period,[47] was described by Nikolaus Pevsner as "among the most fanciful pieces of Jacobean design in [England]".[39]". Was the unique bit that NP used those words to describe it? If so, it's not much of a claim. The first words are "among the", which rules it out of being "unique".

I'll remove "unique".♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• "It is three storeys high and features three sets". 3 storeys is stated in the previous section.

Yes, but the initial is a brief overview and I elaborate on it in the second by mentioning the three bays.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• "layout on the second and top floors". In the UK, the 2nd floor of a 3-storey building is the top one.

Changed to "first" floor.

Not changed yet! EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Can't seem to locate it, can you be more specific?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

North and south section. EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The mansion is richly furnished with period pieces". Is this still the case, following the 2014 sale? Same question applies to lots of other descriptions.

Yes, it would be very unlikely that the house was stripped, the pieces belong to the Grade I listed building.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• "but in the end rejected them for another set". Needs "he" or a restructuring.

added "he".

• "the "Wrought Room", named for the "wrought" hangings of the bed". Something more descriptive would help someone who isn't sure of "wrought".

Not sure on that one either!

Still to do. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be OR though? The source doesn't explain it and it would be pure guess work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If no-one knows what it means, best to remove it ("named for the "wrought" hangings of the bed"), I suggest. EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Two of the bedrooms, the two "White Rooms", were originally connected to what was called the Flower-de-luce Room, but the doors were boarded up". There's no "Flower-de-luce" on the plan, so what was/is this?

Good point, not sure, it's not shown on the plan as you say, but then again, neither are the two white rooms.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Unless I've missed it, there's nothing on the interior of the second floor.

Could find any mention of it, nope.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunate, but if there's nothing available, it'll have to do. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• "An inquiry cleared him". Of what?

Murder of course! Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• "who hunted fox and deer (and collected butterflies) there". Better to avoid brackets here.

Removed.

• "separate listings for other structures near the house, including". "including" entails that there are others unstated. Is this correct?

Yes I think so.

• "taken away by Sir Denzil Cope's". Who's that?

Presumably the owner of Bramshill at the time, it was in the hands of the Cope family.

• Capitalization in Refs looks inconsistent.

Which one? If you mean CEPOL it's supposed to be like that, its an acronym.

That one's fine. I mean the contrast between, for example, "Walls and Gate Piers to West of Bramshill House" (all content words capitalized) and "Playing host to many a ghost" (only the first) or "First-Class Matches played on Bramshill Park" (all except one). EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I made as many of them as consistent in caps as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Public Consultation, Bramshill House, Hampshore". Change to "Hampshire".

Well-spotted :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Notes. Add full stop at the end of #38?

I added a citation template, should come naturally now.

• There may be no official requirement, but putting the categories in alphabetical order looks nicer. I'll reply to your replies later on. EddieHugh (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not heard that one before LOL. The categories are fine and in an appropriate order!

Easier to find a specific one if someone's hunting through a long list, but not to worry. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Some exceptional points here, many thanks EddieHugh.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

My responses are indented and signed above: some things are still to be dealt with; anything not indented and signed I regard as dealt with. Thanks for the prompt updates.EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

One more thing:

• "5000 volumes". To match some prices and areas, "5,000" (with comma) would be better. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

EddieHugh I've done my best to address all of your points, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I count four things added on 09 Feb (UTC) remaining to be responded to. EddieHugh (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Care to list them below? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

They're the ones dated 9 Feb... Starting points:

• "Bramshill appears to have been an important local sporting and social venue, as numerous paintings"

That one was reworded to reflect what the source gives.

The only info in the source stated is "This page contains some of the paintings and prints that can be seen at the National Fencing Museum." That doesn't justify what is written in the article's paragraph. EddieHugh (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

EddieHugh OK, I've shortened it to simply describing the prints depicting games, the reader can draw their own conclusion from that without it being OR.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "2,500-acre wooded park"

Done.

• "layout on the second and top floors"

As I said I couldn't find any real details on the upper floor, presumably just bedrooms.

The point was that '2nd floor' is the same as 'top floor' in British English, so shouldn't it be '1st floor' and 'top floor'? EddieHugh (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, OK, I'll change to top floor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "the "Wrought Room", named for the "wrought" hangings of the bed" EddieHugh (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said I have no details on what exactly they're referring to and given that this is the case it would be OR to try to guess and elaborate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't know what it means, and neither do I. If no-one knows, it's meaningless and the bit on "wrought hangings" should be cut. EddieHugh (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, removed it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

All of my comments have now been dealt with. Thank you for your patience and responses. EddieHugh (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Support: I read this knowing absolutely nothing about the subject, and I was pleasantly surprised on how much of an interesting read it was. Excellent work Blofeld! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Krimuk90!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

• Is there a wikilink for "Grade I" in the lead section?

That's about the only comment I have on this article. It would be better to archive the references to prevent dead links. On the whole, it is a fantastic article and it has my Support. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 06:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sven. We don't actually seem to have an article on Grade I listed building. If we did I think it would be worth linking of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Simon Burchell

Support This is a very nice looking article, and I'll make any comments as I go. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• The last one-sentence para in the lead looks a little lonely. Maybe it could be combined into the previous para?

Merged.

• The Legends section says that 14 ghosts have been reported, but only 2 are mentioned in the text. Is any further information available to fill out this section? If not, I have a number of books on Hampshire folklore and may be able to dig something up.

I couldn't find anything much, not beyond the unreliable ghost type sites, but if you have a book and could find something further I'd be grateful Simon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

All 14 ghosts now accounted for... I have lots more info available, but what's in the section now should cover it sufficiently. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Query from Hchc2009

I mostly really enjoyed the article. I had a couple of concerns on the sourcing though at the FA level, and would oppose at this stage on that basis (but am happy to be convinced otherwise - please push back if you disagree with me!)

• I wasn't convinced that P. Lal, writing for the Sunday Tribune in India, was a "high-quality reliable source" for British folklore concerning the house (the newspaper article is used six times).

The newspaper itself seems to be a reliable source, and he really seems to have done his research into writing it and you'll find what is documented in other sources. Perhaps it seems strange that it's an Indian newspaper not a British one. But most journalists writing on general topics are not experts in the given fields.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I also wasn't sure about Penny Legg ("Folklore of Hampshire"), Donald Parr ("The Web of Fear") and Wood and Kolak ("A Ghost a Day: 365 True Tales of the Spectral, Supernatural, and ... Just Plain Scary!"). Legg is a generalist writer, teacher and journalist, albeit with an interest in the paranormal (she notes that "as an Associate Member of Haunted Southampton Ltd, I have joined several investigations and as a writer I have met and worked with many people interested in the paranormal"). I wasn't convinced though that she has represents a high-quality reliable source for folklore studies (she doesn't produce peer reviewed work, as far as I'm aware etc.) Parr is similarly probably best known for books of reprinted old photographs of the south, and again doesn't (as far I'm aware) have any formal education in folklore, or publish in peer-reviewed works, higher quality publication houses etc. Wood and Kolak don't give any indication of what research they carried out for their book; their publishers describe them as being a "a fifth generation psychic/trance-medium" and "a paranormal scientist", but again, there's no evidence given of academic qualifications in the field, peer review, high quality publishing houses etc.

Wood and Parr books were superfluous sources anyway and have been removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• With regard to the Legg book, it is one of a series of well-researched county folklore books, it's a cut above the normal "county haunting" type books and covers various aspects of Hampshire folklore. To be clear, with folklore we are dealing with stories in circulation, and would not necessarily require a scholarly article. In the context, I would consider it an acceptable source. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'd agree it is better than the usual ghost story books (!), but I don't think the publishing house in question peer reviews its publications or does independent fact checking, so I'd be cautious about using it at FA level; to be honest, my concern in many cases is that "stories in circulation" becomes a shorthand for "repeating what another author has said previously", as opposed to genuine research into whether a folklore story is really still active in a particular area, or was actually widely known at an earlier point in history. Does Pegg give any indications of the sorts of research she carried out for this bit of the book? (have.g. archive work, oral histories etc.) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• There are plenty of high quality folklore works out there (including by very strong publishing houses, peer reviewed journals etc), but I wasn't convinced that these were good examples of them at the FA level.
• Footnote 98 probably needs a page number. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It does appear to have a page number.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

you deleted the original fn 98! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Justice of the Peace. Justice of the Peace. 1987. p. 871." - this seems to be in a different format to the rest of the article (e.g. no volume number etc.) Hchc2009 (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Added the volume number but anything else didn't pick up in the google book ref maker. You can view the source here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I can only see the snippet view. It looks like it should have a title and an author though, as it seems to be an article of some sort. Could you check the first page of it? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You know what? I was actually considering removing the haunting section at an earlier stage as it's verging on WP:FRINGE theories and pseudoscience. I once had an interesting conversation with User:Jehochman over it. I think a basic summary is appropriate, given that it is supposed to be one of the most haunted houses, but to expect an encyclopedia article on an architectural piece to have a detailed (and scholarly at that) coverage of things like ghosts and other things which are widely believed to be make believe stories really has no place in an encyclopedia. I don't think detailed coverage is encyclopedic. I'm sure many others here would agree. This is an article on an architectural piece, a country house, not ghosts. The summary we have is adequate and comparable to several other FAs on country houses with a summary of apparent hauntings. I've already covered the ghosts which have received the most coverage in multiple sources and that is satisfactory I think. Simon's made some good additions today which now appears to have it all covered, but I really wouldn't want to see this bloated out into a massive section. I found the best sources which were available to me in covering it at the time, most coverage is on amateurish websites which certainly wouldn't cut the mustard as reliable sources. In all honesty there's very few "credible" authors on things like ghosts, I'm sure you could question most of the books written on topics like that, regardless of the credentials of the author.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ghost stories? We're moving too far into FRINGE territory for my liking. A brief piece outlining that people believe there are ghosts is one thing, but detailed scholarly research on the supernatural is thin at the best of times, let alone about specific,properties. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• The house has a significant body of folklore associated with it, and I would expect that to be briefly covered in the article. An overview of folklore is not the same as arguing for the reality (or not) of ghosts. Note that there is an FA on the Cock Lane Ghost, that the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane FA has a section on ghosts, Little Moreton Hall is a more recently promoted example; and I am sure that I could fish around for more examples, and that the section here is titled "Legends", not "Supernatural phenomena" or somesuch. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• If (as the article states) people believe that there is a ghost in the stables etc. then it is a notable fact... But the fact of that belief needs to be reliably cited. (i don't mean that we need sources to prove that there is a ghost, just reliable sources showing that a reasonble number of people believe, or believed, it to be the case). Similarly, claims about stories being told, reported etc. need to be reliably sourced. At the moment, I don't think the quality of the sources justifies the detail of the section. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with covering notable history and legends. Jehochman ^Talk 03:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think a summary is fine as Simon says, coverage of legends does offer an interesting angle to coverage. But expecting all of these scholarly sources and in depth coverage studying them and to not consider it FA worthy because of it.. What sources Hchc2009 would you consider reliable for this then? I would prefer it if you gave specific examples and illustrate the abundance of better sources on the topic. Imagining that there's lots of high quality sources on this isn't going to produce results. An article on something like Legends of Hampshire or something you might expect something more detailed. This is an article on an architectural piece which at best should have a basic summary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Dr B, to clarify, I'm not suggesting that the material here should be made any longer. Rather, I'm arguing that in the absence of reliable sources, we shouldn't be giving so much weight to some of the details in the section (the solution to there not being high-quality reliable sources on an topic isn't to use low-quality sources instead...!) To use Simon's example of Moreton Hall, you've got examples of the best and worst of sources in its "Superstition and haunting" section: you've got material from a Manchester University Press volume (reliable in my opinion) and material from a self-published ghost website mainly concerned with selling the author's own books (not particularly reliable in my opinion). I've noted my general concerns with the reliability of the sourcing above, but examples of where this then causes me particular concerns in this article include:
• "King Michael I of Romania is said to have asked to be moved to another room during a stay there..." To me this gives an impression that the event is essentially fact - that the King did ask to be moved because he thought he repeatedly saw a ghost. I'd be seeking a reliable source for this statement, and a better elaboration of whether the King really did move rooms, or if this is an unsubstantiated story that someone has just told about the King at a later point etc. Given that the King is still alive, and covered by BLP policy, if it's unsubstantiated then I don't think it should be included. If the story is factual, then we should be saying so as well.

The Legg book looks to be a reliable source, "reportedly" asked to be moved I think is fine, and it's actually better from a BLP perspective to word it like that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm don't think that's the way that the BLP policy would prefer us to have it. It states that "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." In this case, I don't think that Legg gives any information on where she came by the story, which is effectively making it an anonymous account and, to me, pretty close to gossip. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I've reworded it to "According to folklorist Penny Legg". Yes, we're an encyclopedia here to report what has been documented in reliable sources. I can think of some recent articles by some very credible editors here which have passed FAC and who've stated "According to the author" to deliver a claim. It's fine I think now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the degree to which the author is a reliable source I think... Where do you stand on the "Ghost a Day" and the other sources? Hchc2009 (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The Wood book source is superfluous anyway, so I've removed it. Which remaining sources do you think are shockingly bad? All I can see the legends section uses now are a government source for haunted, the Legg book, the Tribune newspaper source and the historical sources Page and Cope, all of which clearly meet RS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree with you over Legg - I can't see any evidence that either her or the publisher is known for reliable fact checking, peer review, explanation of the research techniques used etc., which are important attributes for high quality secondary sources. I feel similarly about L. Pol in the Tribune (He doesn't seem to be a particular expert in the field, and I can't work out where his information is actually supposed to have come from, other than the breakfast table in 1986!). Page and Cope look like reliable sources for claims in their period. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The Legg source is published by The History Press - "the UKs largest local and specialist history book publisher; publishing over 500 history books a year including Local History, Military History..." I'd argue that you're unlikely to find a better source on covering the Legends of Hampshire and the house, so if you still dispute the legitimacy of the source I can see there's little way of changing your oppose vote. Tell me, who do you think is an expert on such a topic. What existing sources would be better than the Legg book and the Tribune newspaper source?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The volume of publications coming out of a company isn't a good indicator of reliability - evidence of fact checking or the use of peer review typically is. I don't know of any reliable secondary sources for modern folklore on the house, but I don't think that is a good reason to use unreliable sources - shortening the section so as to avoid undue weight would be a better solution. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say the volume of publications is, but I'm arguing that it appears to be a leading publisher in its field. Simon is an experienced researcher, and I'll trust his judgement that it's a credible source for the topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The Grey Lady's husband is believed to haunt the stables..." - believed by who? Lots of people? A few? One or two paranormal investigators?
• "The chapel drawing room is also said to be haunted..." The "said to be" phrase is used in various places here, and always begs the question "by who?" By lots of people? By the tour guide? By a couple of paranormal investigators? By a previous Victorian writer? Again, good sourcing can help to determine this, and therefore the weight that should be given to it in the article, but I don't think we have the kind of reliable sourcing at the moment. (The "reputed to..." phrase also makes an appearance in various places, which has similar issues - who believes it to have this reputation? Like "said to", it's a good example of a WP:WEASEL phrase.)) Hchc2009 (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I never feel comfortable with covering things like ghosts on wikipedia. It's finding a way to write it so that it seems credible and neutral. Some people believe it, yes, I could change it to "allegedly", that might read better. I've changed as many examples of "is believed" or "is said" as possible. All we know is that they've been reportedly seen, I'm sure paranormal investigators would claim seeing the lot, but stories like this are usually seen by a wide range of people who turn them into legends. Not sure what "self-published ghost website" you're referring to, given the topic I think the sources are generally very good and meet WP:RS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hchc2009 I agree that we should try to use the best sources available, but I believe I've done that. If you could find accessible sources online which are superior to the Tribune source for instance then we might get somewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Answered above - I don't that using an unreliable source is the right response to a paucity of reliable secondary sources on an aspect of an article, nor in keeping with the relevant Featured Article criteria. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've done my best to address what you've said, we'll have to agree to disagree on the reliability of the Legg book and the leading Indian newspaper source, I'm sure it'll have no bearing on the outcome unless somebody can really illustrate superior sources on the topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, probably best to agree to disagree (NB: if you ever want some recommendations for reading on cultural research methods, gathering oral histories, etc., though, do let me know! It is an area I know pretty well.) The references are looking a lot better now though, with the weakest ones pruned out, and the language is better. The two Justice of the Peace magazine citations definitely need authors and titles though - I'm nearly 100% sure that the magazine used them during the '60s and '80s. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Can you acknowledge/action Hchc's last point about the magazine citations? @Hchc2009: Given that you've agreed to disagree on other points, would this be the last actionable concern you have? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ian: yep, we're in disagreement about the sourcing and have agreed to disagree. :) I think the author and titles are needed for the magazine articles though. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried to address most of his concerns Ian, he even said "The references are looking a lot better now though, with the weakest ones pruned out, and the language is better." The source is here 3rd one down. I couldn't find those details, google gives very little. Perhaps somebody with library connections here like Tim riley or somebody could find the author and title?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I can only see the snippets format, which isn't much use... Do we know which editor originally added them? Hchc2009 (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I added the source recently in response to your concern about reliable sources making the claim!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: What shall I do about it? The details are not given by google. I thought it a good source to demonstrate the most haunted claim. Eddie Hugh has done a spot check I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you considered dropping the publishers an email? The magazine is still published I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a link of where to contact?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The link from Justice of the Peace Magazine was broken when I tried it last time, but I think [2] works and has some contact details. I suspect a google search might also produce an editorial contact address. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Support and comments. I learned a lot about this property in the course of helping to gather photos for it. It's a fine article about the estate and its rich history. I also noted that the magazine Country Life has featured Bramshill House many times over the magazine's history; we have photos from 1899 and 1903 Country Life articles about it. When the news came that the estate was to be sold, Country Life was there again, with a news article saying that Bramshill House "was said to be one of England’s most haunted country houses" in their July 25, 2013 issue. If this is the only problem hoding up the article's promotion, here is the link to the Country Life story. We hope (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks WH, and for the free images you found recently!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: I don't think it's worth going to all that trouble over two sources, one of which was easily replaceable. I've replaced one with a Telegraph source and removed the other, the motto I thought seemed a bit trivial and out of context anyway. We should be OK now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

DrB, did you mean to link to the Telegraph article in fn 93? I can't see anything about ghosts or hauntings in that article... Hchc2009 (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The cite has now been changed to one from July 2013 from Country Life magazine and the quote is "said to be one of England's most haunted country houses." We hope (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is another newspaper source I could add, but I think that will suffice.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Noted the above -- sorry I didn't stop by after the earlier ping. I'll probably walk though the FAC list in the next day or so; unless something else pops I'd expect to close this. Tks all and cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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