Talk:Penshaw Monument/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 10:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Pleased to pick this up. It is looking good. I'll be working on it for a few days. You may find it easier to wait till I'm done, or you may prefer to respond as we go. KJP1 (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article is a long way from meeting any one of the GA criteria.

   • 

2. The article contains copyright violations.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is unstable.

   • 

Main review

1. It is well written.

a (prose): The standard of prose is high. Some suggestions for consideration below.

Lead

• ""Penshaw Monument" - I wonder if the start of the lead, though not the title, should have a definite article, "The Penshaw Monument" reads more easily for me.
  • Written sources are inconsistent on this, but I am from the local area and it is mostly referred to without the definite article by local people, so I would prefer to follow this usage.
• "author of the Durham report" - A little more, and a capital letter? "author of the Durham Report on the future governance of the American territories."?
  • Done
• "John and Benjamin Green designed Penshaw Monument" - This comes across a little emphatically to me. I might blend it with the next sentence into something like; "The monument was designed by John and Benjamin Green and built by Thomas Pratt of Bishopwearmouth using local..."?
  • Done

Location

• "people travel from the local area and elsewhere to visit" - given that that's everywhere, I wonder if "from the local area and elsewhere" is necessary?
  • Changed to "people come to visit"
• Final para. - the very detailed mileages don't add much for me. While it might be 1.1 miles from Washington, does it matter? Purely a style point, and no criteria issue, so leave should you wish.
  • I've removed all the distances - do you think that works?
• "the spire of Durham Cathedral" - I think it's actually a tower, rather than a spire, "the central tower"?
  • Done

Background

• "according to some historians" - I'm guessing support for this comes from the DNB entry. Any chance you could name one, or all? "Some historians" is a bit vague.
• "Durham is still viewed with antipathy in Quebec" - is he really? I'd be amazed if 1/10 Quebecois have ever heard of him, but if that's what the source says.
  • It says "in modern Quebec he remains a symbolic cultural threat". Honestly I haven't done that much research into Lambton himself - I hoped that reading the ODNB would be enough to sum up his life for the purposes of this article. I suppose I was trying to maintain NPOV and mention the negative view of Lambton's colonialism to counterbalance the suggestion that the report served as an example for the Commonwealth. The ODNB cites Reginald Coupland calling it "Magna Carta of the Second British Empire", so I could mention him? But maybe this article shouldn't discuss analyses of his actions and should just stick to the bare facts of what he did? For now I've removed the sentence altogether - what do you think?

I think that's sensible, and as you say, it's more about Lambton than the monument.

1840–1842: proposals and selection of the site

• "suggested Penshaw Hill as a location because it was located on the Earl's property" - this would appear to contradict the last para. of History of the site, which says it belonged to Londonderry and that he donated it?
  • According to Middleton, p. 25, who cites an 1848 tithe map, Penshaw Hill itself continued to belong to Londonderry even after the monument's construction (maybe he didn't actually give the land to Durham's estate but simply allowed it to be used for the monument?). However, "the land around the Monument, known as ‘Penshaw Hill Field’ (Pasture) was owned by the Earl of Durham". So it looks like the site of the monument was originally surrounded by Lambton's land, but not actually part of it. However, the Local Collections source says that William Hutt MP described Penshaw Hill as "Lord Durham's property" in 1842 – it seems he was mistaken... Do you have any suggestions for how I could handle this?

Tricky. I think the thing to do is to reflect the confusion of the sources, perhaps in a footnote. I don't think we can have apparently contradictory statements in the article. Perhaps, a footnote after ref.39, saying something like: "There is some confusion in the sources as to whether the land on which the monument was built belonged to Lambton or to Londonderry", with cites to Middleton and the Local Collection?

• "More money was later raised in London by a metropolitan committee" - I don't quite get what a "metropolitan committee" is. I think it means a committee based in the metropolis. Perhaps, "More money was later raised by a London-based committee"?
  • Done

1842–1843: selection of the design

• "The committee applied to the Royal Institute of British Architects in London" - which committee and for what did they apply? Perhaps, "The memorial committee sought advice from the RIBA"?
  • Done
• "if a public call for designs were made" - "was made", for agreement?
  • Done
• "John Augustus Cory—Two designs: a column in the style of Italian architecture" - is the source more specific. There's more than one Italian style. I'd guess it was this, Italianate architecture?
  • The source says "in the Italian style of architecture, in which the disposition of the walls in a radiating form affords the opportunity of combining great stability with lightness of appearance." I'm afraid I don't know enough about architecture to know if this is Italianate...

Given that the source is contemporary, I am certain they would have been using Italian as a proxy for Italianate, and I'd suggest that, for the reader, that would be the better link.

• "In May 1843, the committee met to consider the designs it had received" - Has a stage been missed here? Presumably, the exec. com. called for more/new designs?
  • I think a stage is missed out, because I couldn't find a source explicitly saying they requested more designs. I have changed "the" to "new" - do you think this is enough?

Yep.

1844: construction and foundation stone ceremony

• "the monument's stylobate indicate that they were transported with a lewis" - I'd link what I think is the first mention of stylobate, and maybe expand lewis, even with a link - "a lewis lifting device"?
  • Linked and expanded
• "Freemasons formed a procession and marched to the top of the hill, accompanied by a marching band" - marched and marching in close proximity clash a little. Perhaps, "Freemasons ascended the hill, accompanied by a marching band"?
  • Done

1880s to 1920s: early damage and fatal accident

• "many of the stones forming its stylobate" - bluelink for stylobate not needed now, see above.
  • Removed

1980s to 2000s: floodlighting and further repair

• "In 2006 the National Trust attempted to prevent the Newcastle-based Roseberry Group" - given that the NT was successful, "attempted" doesn't quite work. Perhaps, "In 2006 the NT opposed plans by the Newcastle-based...to construct..."?
  • I've actually removed this whole passage as one of the source links doesn't work and it seems kind of insignificant on reflection...

2010s and 2020s: reopening of the staircase and vandalism

• "By March 2013, over 3600 people had received a tour" - perhaps "over 3600 had taken the tours"?
  • Done, although I've kept "people"
• "They were paid for with a government loan and are expected to reduce" - "are"?
  • I've repeated "were" instead... I am hesitant to put "are" because surely six years later it is now known how much energy they save, so it is no longer a question of expectation...?

Architecture

• "However, according to the Sunderland Echo, "at best it could be said it is 'slightly similar to' the Temple of Hephaestus"" - given that both the NT and Historic England reference the inspiration, as well as numerous contemporary accounts, I'm not convinced that the Sunderland Echo's view quite warrants equal weight.
  • I don't think that the Echo is denying that the temple inspired the monument here; I think they are specifically countering those who describe it as a "replica" by noting that it differs physically from the temple in many respects (notably height, and number and diameter of columns, see note n), while "replica" implies an exact copy. In my opinion the word "replica" on the NT site is a mistake for this reason. (But the Echo aren't always right either as they incorrectly describe it as "hexastyle" instead of tetrastyle in the same article.) I have reworded the section to first establish the inspiration (even though this is stated earlier as well), then juxtapose the "replica" description and the Echo's point - what do you think?

Again, fine.

Reception and impact - 19th century

• "The decision to make the walls and columns hollow was condemned by The Athenaeum" - I think this is the first mention I've read of "walls". I can't see any, let alone hollow ones. Do you mean the "absence" of walls, (as with the absent roof) and hollow columns? This section has some wonderful quotes, by the way!
  • Walls are actually mentioned in the lead and architecture section as well. The Athenaeum says "all the walls in the foundations, as also the walls of the massive entablatures" are hollow. I've specified this in the architecture section. The "walls of the entablature" does sound a bit strange, maybe it isn't the best word to use? (I know, right - I wonder if they were written by some of the London architects whose designs were rejected...!)

My oversight.

Notes

• (b) - Our article on the Tenantry Column states that it was constructed after a reduction in rents, rather than an increase. I must say it sounds like a modern myth. What does the source here say?
  • The Public Sculpture of North-East England book describes how the Tenantry Column was built to honour Hugh, 2nd Duke of Northumberland after a reduction in his tenants' rent, and also the story that Penshaw Monument's construction led to rents being raised. It says the first story is "similar [to the second], but true". I think the stories are different and only superficially "similiar" in that they both involve building a monument and rents, one was possibly based on the other and they both have led monuments to be called the "Farmers' Folly"... ultimately I've removed reference to the Tenantry Column as it does seem a bit extraneous. Do you think the footnote should mention it?

Not essential, but perhaps helpful.

General

• "However" - We share a fondness for this word. I count 14 uses. If you're thinking of FA, and you should, be aware that it is a red rag to a bull for some reviewers, and its use will likely be challenged.
  • I've got rid of a couple but I think it's often necessary to mark a contrast, especially when sources contradict each other a lot as they do here
• Footnotes - similarly, we both like these, but not all FA reviewers do!
  • I'm not always a fan of footnotes, but it this case there were a lot of things I wanted to include but which would clutter up the main text (or which wouldn't quite sound right in the 'voice' of the main prose). I think I would defend them if I took this to FA.

Again, not a GA issue so fine. And many FAs have many footnotes, including a few of mine, so I'm not going to argue!

b (MoS):

• I'm no MoS expert, but it looks good to me. One minor style point. I prefer a citeless lead, as you have, but I think the two footnotes would sit more happily in the main text.
  • I would rather keep them in the lead if possible, for the following reasons: the first explains the decision to summarise the date of construction as 1844–1845 rather than simply 1844, which only occurs in the lead and infobox. Since this involves information absent from almost all published sources and involved some detective work on my part to work out, I feel like it should be explained as soon as possible in a footnote lest the reader think that the article is wrong or not reflective of the sources. The second is about the various names of the monument, so I think it's most relevant as an addendum to the first paragraph where the main names are introduced.

Your call - it's not a GA requirement.

2. It is verifiable with Wikipedia:No original research.

a (references)

• It is very well cited. I have checked every accessible source and all hold up. Can you just review References 31/59/11, in line with the queries raised in Prose, above.
  • Should be addressed above, if you mean ODNB/Durham Chronicle/Usherwood et al

Indeed it is.

b (citations to reliable sources)

• All the sources look perfectly reliable.

c (OR)

• There is no evidence of OR;

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations)

• nor of plagiarism, Earwig checking out just fine.

3. It is broad in its scope.

a (major aspects)

• The only two points I would make here are: firstly, for completeness, I might use Headley and Meulenkamp, Follies, Grottoes and Garden Buildings, the folly hunter's bible, and Jo Darke, The Monument Guide to England and Wales. Neither's actually got much you don't already have, but they are sort of the standard works on follies etc. From Darke, you could have "Durham's monument to Durham - a great northern landmark", and from H&M, "blackened with industrial soot, a satanic response to the pure white Hellenic ideal". I could mail you the extracts if you want to take a look. Secondly, and this is personal preference, the focus on Bryan Ferry at the end of the article doesn't quite work. While Ferry is clearly notable, neither he nor his biographer are historians, let alone architectural historians, and yet they take up four of the five sentences of the concluding paragraph. I think there are more important views on the monument, which would make a more fitting conclusion. These include some you've used in the earlier para.s of this section; Pevsner's "an apparition of the Acropolis under hyperborean skies"; Darke and H&M. Personally, I'd rejig, and put the Ferry passage earlier, concluding with some of the weightier views.
  • Thanks for suggesting those sources, I've added them to the Reception and impact section. I've tried to reorganise it to finish with quotes from newspapers and then (architectural) historians. Previously I was trying to maintain a rough chronological order throughout the Reception section but I've basically dispensed with that now - what do you think of the new version? Also I'm not entirely sure how the WP email system works but if you can send me the extracts that would be great.

Much improved, in my view.

b (focused)

• The article remains well-focused on the main topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

• Y

5. It is stable.

• Y

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

• They all look fine, except the Lambton portrait. The legal issue between the NPG and Wikipedia appears not to have moved for some years, but nor am I sure it is dead. While I don't think it's a problem at GA, it may be at FAC. User:Nikkimaria is the person to ask.
  • Thanks, I'll keep that in mind

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• These look fine, and the alt text is welcomed.

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail:

• It is a very well-written, well-researched and well-illustrated article on an interesting pile of stones. I used to look out for it regularly on the way back North, and it does have a magnetism. Really delighted to see such a good article being written about it. Take a look at the above comments - by no means all of them need actioning, as some are preferences, rather than requirements. I'll put it on hold now, and you can respond as and when. Drop me a line here, if you want to talk anything through. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review! I'm aware that there are still a few more minor things the article could mention eventually but I'm pretty happy with the shape it's in. Ajmint (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Apologies - real life suddenly took a busy turn. I’ll look to respond on the specifics this weekend but I agree it is in Good shape. KJP1 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

First - massive apologies. Real life is being really difficult just now. Second - it is looking good. Let me just think of a footnote suggestion for the land ownership issue, and we're there. KJP1 (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

And a suggestion in, for your consideration. KJP1 (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay but I've tried to address the confusion about the ownership of the hill with two footnotes, f and g - what do you think? Ajmint (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for delays are due from me, not you. I don't think I've ever taken so long over a GA. The footnotes do the job perfectly and I'm very pleased to Pass it. It was a Good Article before I began reviewing it. You can be proud of a great article on a "great Northern landmark". KJP1 (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Headley, Gwyn; Meulenkamp, Wim (1999). Follies, Grottoes and Garden Buildings. London: Aurum Press. ISBN 9781854106254.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
• Darke, Jo (1991). The Monument Guide to England and Wales: A National Portrait in Bronze and Stone. London: MacDonald and Co. OCLC 1008240876.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)