Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it provides a comprehensive overview of the life and work of William Burges, an important Victorian architect. I am grateful to all those who contributed to the article, in particular User:Tim riley for his absolutely excellent Good Article review and User:Dr Blofeld for first suggesting that it might be possible. I look forward to improving the article further by addressing the comments made at FAR. KJP1 (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Support as co-writer. Article is comprehensive and provides an excellent insight into his works and legacy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Support; I like this article lots. It has all the needed content in it, provides great insight and it's comprehsneive. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I have only looked in any detail at the lead. A quick glance at the rest suggests a very comprehensive study of Burges and impressive use of the available sources. I doubt I will have time to venture much further, but here are a few points for consideration:-
I personally dislike infoboxes, but when they are used they should be briefly informative about the main aspects of the subject. This one doesn't even include the information that Burges was an architect.
Agree completely, infobox added no value either. Removed. If there is no further objection..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Loud cheering! A most excellent decision. Tim riley (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The removal of info boxes is good. Very happy with that! -- Cassianto (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Mmm an TFD for infobox person...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Citations: I don't think it is necessary to cite in the lead the statements that Burges was considered one of the greatest of the Victorian art-architects and that his career was illustrious. These points will surely be made, and should be cited, in the article. More seriously, the last lead paragraph includes: Burges's position as "a wide-ranging scholar, an intrepid traveller, a coruscating lecturer, a brilliant decorative designer and an architect of genius" is again appreciated. This exact wording, and citation, is repeated in the Legacy section. You should replace the wording in the lead with a brief paraphrase.
Removed all citations.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Removed quote, as repeated later, and re-worded. KJP1 (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
You should avoid long lists in the lead, e.g. the nine or ten buildings given in the second paragraph. Such lists are tedious to read - give two or three examples at most.
I've trimmed the number listed but I would have to say given that a substantial amount of the article discusses his works that it is reasonable to highlight a few of them in the lead to effectively summarize the article. His most notable by far were Cardiff Castle and Castel Coch but I think it would be wrong not to mention a few of his others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
"Many of his designs were never executed or were subsequently eradicated." It's an odd choice of word, "eradicated" (dictionary: "to obliterate, stamp out, to pull or tear up by the roots"). And it's not clear who did the eradicating.
Changed to demolished. Hope this clears it up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
"For most of the century following his death, Victorian architecture was universally despised..." Surely, that's an overstatement? It may not have been fashionable during parts of the 20th century, but universally despised?
Agreed, reworded and toned down. Although it is appears to be true that the majority who would have been likely to be passionate about architecture hated Victorian architecture, especially in the first half of the 20th century, I suppose much like many of us look back on the 80s and its Fashion faux pas!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
According to MOS:HEAD, section headings "should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings". Thus the forms "Burges and Bute" and "Study of Burges" are in breach of MOS. The earlier could be "Work with Bute" or some such, the latter "Scholarly studies", perhaps.
Have re-worded the above, and others, but am not sure I've made them any less redundant. Nor really sure I understand the MOS point here. The sub-headings summarise the content of the section and I can't really see how to do that without summarising the content. Would appreciate advice. KJP1 (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Really grateful for your very helpful suggestions and will be pleased to further revise the sub-headings if I can better understand what is wanted. KJP1 (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, having read MOS, which I should have done earlier, I see the point being made. It is the mentioning of the subject of the article, i.e. Burges, which is redundant. Shall now go and change. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Yes, this nomination was put back several weeks primarily because I wanted to google book research each of his works and ensure it was as widely read and researched as possible. I wouldn't have felt comfortable with it being at FAC otherwise. Thankfully the most prolific article writer KJP did a wonderful job so only gaps need to be filled in.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Cassianto: This article is an extremely well researched and comprehensive account of its subject. It is a credit to both the nominator KJP1 and Dr.Blofeld. However, I do have some comments:
"Among the greatest of the Victorian art-architects..." - I have no doubt he was, although this does sound as if it's a bit of a puffery sentence.
Mmm the thing is he was and this is backed by countless sources. To not mention his status as a Victorian architect I think would be censoring.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Could we not say "Among the countries better known art architects" like this in the lead and then say "greatest" in the body with an inline citation?
I have had a think and I don't have a big problem with this. I'm certainly not insistent on it and it won't sway my inevitable support. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
* There are date ranges for the list of building's. What are these? Are they how long the building took to build, to design, or both?
Construction I think. Thanks for your comments. KJP will affirm that.
They are indeed dates of construction. We could remove them but I think they're helpful. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I think personally that they are not necessary as you go onto talk about them later in the article and the dates are listed there. They are also wiki-linked so those wishing to find out the dates can go there. The lede is only an overview of the article itself and as such should only touch upon all the area's of that subjects life; which it does do perfectly but im finding the date ranges are crowding the text. As a bartering tool, you could talk about the first building and explain a little about when it was built and for how long and then do as you have done and keep the other dates in brackets. This will then tell the reader what the other dates mean. However, if it was upto me the dates would go. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I hope the use of your suggestion meets your concern. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it looks a lot better. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Early life and travels
"Special Architect" - why is this quoted? If it is a quote, source?
"His early architectural career produced little although he won prestigious commissions for Lille Cathedral" - It feels like there is a word missing after "little". Little what? Little work? Little praise?
Changed to "His early architectural career produced nothing of major note"♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
St Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork
"on gloomy days .. takes on a luminous quality, (and) in sunshine sparkles like salt" - "and" would be better in square brackets as per WP:MOSQUOTE.
"He also undertook the creation of works as gifts for or commissions from patrons such as the Sneyd dessert service or the Bute claret jug." -- This doesn't read well. Is there a word missing from "...creation of works as gifts for or commissions from.. ."?
"Short, fat, and so near-sighted that he once mistook a peacock for a man, he never married." -- The marriage bit at the end looks poorly placed.
Moved to the end of the section, following the style of Daily Telegraph obituaries. But I warn you, the Dr and I have argued over this placement before! KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not surprised. The sentence is suggesting that it was as a result of his appearance, that he never married. This may not be true. He may have chosen not to marry, never met the right person, been a confirmed bachelor, a whole number of things. The sentence is misleading. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Not a fan of short sentences, that was why.♦Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I see. But it still looks strange seeing it tacked on at the end of a completely unrelated sentence. I'm pretty sure it can be added somewhere else, which won't make it look so out of place. We may have to ask about on this one if it's not resolved. I have replaced this on the article and have added, what I think, could make the line a little longer. Revert if your not kean. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, I hope the compromise meets your concerns and the Doctor's. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It certainly meets mine. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"At Burges's death in 1881, his contemporary, the architect Edward William Godwin, said of Burges that" - I think this needs jiggling about a bit. I would say something like "When Burges died in 1881 it prompted his contemporary, Edward William Godwin to say..."
Oops. Edit conflict. So - from memory. Tweaked slightly. I was trying to emphasise the decline of his reputation, from near-reverence at his death, to loathing shortly thereafter. Does it work now? KJP1 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The following quote is not introduced and gives no explanation at the end as to who said it - "He founded no school,..had few adherents outside the circle of his practice..and trained no further generation of designers."
Done - by attribution to Aldrich. KJP1 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"own strange genius turn(ing) the Middle Ages into magic." - it's our old friend again!
"The current (2012) curator of Cardiff Castle, Matthew Williams",...- again this will become out of date if he leaves. I would say something like "The 2012 curator of Cardiff Castle, Matthew Williams" it's 'current' which should be omitted here.
That's it from me. I really like this article, but I do think there are possibly too many quotes. Having said that, I'm not listing this as a comment and it will not sway my opinion. I think it's good that Tim has highlighted this below and I hope some can be trimmed back. This is certainly well on it's to becoming a FA, something which Burges and it's main editors deserve. -- Cassianto (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Really appreciate your comments and delighted that you like the article. It's much improved for your involvement. Re. the in-line quotes, as I add up the current consensus, it's you, Dr. Blofeld and Tim riley for cutting them back or attributing them, and me for retaining them. So I reckon I'll be editing soon! KJP1 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
And now edited and attributed in line with your comments and those of the Dr and Tim Riley. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned at the top of the page, I reviewed the article at GAC stage. I made a few suggestions at the time about further improvements that would be needed if the article were to qualify for promotion to FA. Some have been addressed, but one that hasn't and strikes me as important concerns quotations: there are dozens throughout the article that in my view ought to be attributed in the text. For a few quotations there are inline attributions, such as "Pevsner describes St Mary's as 'a dream of Early English glory' and Crook writes, 'although Cork Cathedral may stand as Burges's greatest Gothic work, Studley Royal is his "ecclesiastical" masterpiece.'" This is, in my view, just right, but is lacking with other quotations in the article, such as:
"a wide-ranging scholar, an intrepid traveller, a coruscating lecturer, a brilliant decorative designer and an architect of genius"
"once established, after twenty years' preparation, his 'design language' had merely to be applied, and he applied and re-applied the same vocabulary with increasing subtlety and gusto."
"not so much muscular (gothic) as muscle-bound."
"a re-creation of a thirteenth century dream world…"
"on gloomy days .. takes on…"
"redeem the evils of industrialism by re-living the art of the Middle Ages"
"fervent Celt, an enthusiastic builder, and an inveterate antiquarian"
"Bute's most memorable overall achievement."
"a prime example of the partnership of aristocratic patron and talented architect produc(ing) the marvels of Cardiff Castle and Castell Coch"
"amongst the most magnificent the Gothic Revival ever achieved."
"most successful of all the fantasy castles of the nineteenth century."
"a superb example of Burges's genius in the construction of roofs."
"was required to cover areas rather greater than his talents deserved."
"rarely been equalled."
"he executed few buildings as his rich fantastic gothic required equally rich patrons (..) his finished works are outstanding monuments to nineteenth century gothic," "the most magnificent that the gothic revival ever achieved,"
"three dimensional passports to fairy kingdoms and realms of gold. In Cardiff Castle we enter a land of dreams."
"that has become the skyline of the capital of Wales. The dream of one great patron and one great architect has almost become the symbol of a whole nation."
There are many more later, but I'll refrain from listing them. It may be that the absence of inline attribution won't bother other reviewers as it bothers me, and if there is a consensus that I'm making too much of this I'll pipe down.
Occasionally you put in quotation marks a phrase that, to my mind, doesn't gain by being a direct quotation. For instance, "the only private town house to be included." I don't think anyone could accuse you of plagiarism if you used the phrase without the quotation marks.
Agreed, and I think we could possibly cut back on some of the quotes and simply remove them. I said that from the beginning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. Have gone through the article inserting inline attributions, removing redundant quotation marks and even - oh, the pain! - deleting some quotations altogether. I very much hope it addresses the concerns Tim, and everyone else but me, had. But I now need to re-read the whole thing as I fear I will have made the prose clunky. Also, although I've tried to "introduce" those I quote on first doing so, I'm not sure I've succeeded throughout. So, have I addressed this point satisfactorily or is there more I need do? KJP1 (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Re-reading, I find I haven't got all the books quoted, and I can't seem to find them all in the References Section. I'll list them as I go and would much appreciate assistance.
The final sentence of the first para. of Early Works has a quote relating to the Cerberus Privy at Gayhurst. The footnote says Cooper but I'm not sure who?KJP1 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking you've now addressed the need to cite Cooper's text in the references? I've added an attribution to him in the text.KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
We have a confusion of marquesses. "George Robinson, 1st Marquess of Ripon, although not as rich as Bute, was the Marquess's equal ... Both churches were built as memorial churches for the Marquess's brother-in-law" I suggest something like "George Robinson, 1st Marquess of Ripon, although not as rich as Bute, was his equal ... Both churches were built as memorial churches for Ripon's brother-in-law"
"bequeathed to Crook following Handley-Read's suicide" – it is at least arguable that they were bequeathed before H-R's suicide. The OED: "To make a formal assignation of (property of which one is possessed) to any one, so as to pass to the recipient after one's death: To 'leave' by will."
Changed to just "bequeathed to Crook without making judgement of timing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
After that litany of carping and quibbling, let me add that I think this is a magnificent article, and will be FA material once the necessary adjustments are in place. – Tim riley (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your very constructive comments!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I have struck all my ad hoc comments, but before adding my support I must in conscience wait to see what other reviewers think about the point I raised about attributing quotations within the text. I admit that the MoS says merely "the author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote", and there are few if any full sentences in quotes within the text. I rather hope other reviewers tell me I'm fussing about nothing, in which case it will be my privilege and pleasure to support this outstanding article.Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Morning Tim. I was going to come and talk about the quotes on your page, but it's probably better done here. Firstly, I really appreciate all of the further comments and observations you've made - they, and Dr. Blofeld's responses, have again improved the article greatly. Re. the in-line quotes, I have to say that I don't think I share your concern, although I quite accept I'm rather less experienced in the FA arena! But I think they add substantially to the article and not just in length. They give the opinions of authoritative writers as to Burges's importance etc. They are, or should be, referenced in the notes so that any reader wishing to verify, or source them, can do so. I've blocked out today to go through the article again so will certainly check that they are. And I have sought to "fold" them into the text so that the prose flows and is interesting for the reader. The alternatives would seem to be: remove them - which I think would seriously diminish the quality of the article; or source them all within the text. This would, I think, become as repetitive as my use of "Burges's signature ...", in that it would be "Crook says", again, and again, or clumsy variants where I would try to use other words for "says". But I fully accept others, with more experience than I, may share your view. Shall we see? If the consensus is that they should all be sourced in the text - I can certainly do this, as I have all the books from which they come. Again, very many thanks for your time, your constructive engagement, and your very kind words. Best regards.KJP1 (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
See above. I hope the amendments address the concern. KJP1 (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Support - the above (together with its execution within the article) removes my one reservation about adding wholehearted support for this remarkably fine article. Tim riley (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
And thankyou for an equally fine review and constructive criticism which have helped improve it considerably.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Is "art-architects" a genuine expression? I haven't come across it before.
I think so. Certainly Crook, no mean scholar (!), uses it in his guide to the centenary Burges exhibition, "The Strange Genius of William Burges Art-Architect, 1827-1881". This [] discusses the concept. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"Mediaeval" Aargh! Please, please, revert to "medieval". "Mediaeval" is, IMNSHO, old-fashioned and pedantic. Have a look at WP's List of history journals - 7 journals have "medieval" in their title and none have "mediaeval".
I have no strong feelings but perhaps we shouldn't be old-fashioned. Is the consensus to revert back? If so, I'll happily do so. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the ae like in Encyclopaedia is wonderfully pedantic and represents its origins very well. In my opinion it makes it more authentically "mediaeval"! But the universal spelling like that was suggested by Tim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Dr B has kindly removed the "a" which caused you such pain! KJP1 (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"In short, my mediaevalism's affectation, born of a morbid love of admiration." Oh, all right! (I know Guillaume knows where this comes from, so bah to you, ha-ha to you, and that's what I shall say.) – Tim riley (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't resist having the last word. My 2nd edition of Fowler, published 44 years ago in the Swinging sixties, says on p.356: "medi(a)eval. The shorter spelling is recommended; see Æ, Œ ." --GuillaumeTell 10:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Rapid and inglorious retreat by Riley: I have all three editions of Fowler, and the old boy himself recommended the shorter spelling in the 1926 original. I shall examine my conscience about my own practice and will meanwhile keep my lip zipped when commenting on other people's prose. Tim riley (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"he designed churches, cathedrals..." Only one cathedral was actually built, so this is somewhat misleading
Done. Point taken and re-worded. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
(Ahem!) "Worcester College, Oxford (1864-79)" rather implies that Burges worked on the college for the whole of that period. In fact, work on the chapel took place in 1864-5 (I think) and work on the hall started in 1877.
Done. Point taken. Already removed in the lead, but I've changed the dates in the list of buildings to reflect those given by Crook in his appendix. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"entered King's College London in 1839 to study engineering" What, at the age of 12?!? Was there some sort of feeder school?
Odd indeed but exactly what Crook says on page 39 of WB&THVD. But the next sentence reads "In those days King's College School (my italics) occupied the basement stories of [a] building next to Somerset House in the Strand." So I think you're right and the college had some sort of preparatory school. Have re-worded. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"Blore was an established architect, being architect to both William IV and Queen Victoria" Inelegant - suggest "Blore was an established architect who worked for both W IV and Queen Vic" or similar.
Done, and re-done. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"medi[a]eval Court" - shouldn't this be either Medieval Court or medieval court (I suggest the former)?
Done with a capital M. Left the extra "a" until we decide otherwise. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Now withoutthe extra a. KJP1 (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
"Enabled by his private income" followed by list of miscellaneous countries. First, no dates for the eighteen months are given. Second, "Germany and Spain, Italy and Sicily" - why are Germany and Spain linked? Also, what is now Italy consisted then of a number of states of various sorts - I'd zap Sicily.
"Rooms there contain some of his large, signature, fireplaces, with carving by Burges's long-time collaborator Thomas Nicholls" - superfluous commas after large and signature; also Nicholls needs a wikilink here
Done and Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"Burges later designed the Council Chamber at the end of the hall" - what hall? How many halls have Council Chambers at their end? Is this something to do with the Maison Dieu having become the Town Hall? NB: the Maison Dieu, Dover article ought to be aligned with this one, e.g. it seems to say that Poynter was out of the picture by the time Burges started work, plus it doesn't refer to Connaught Hall or include wikilinks apart from one for Burges.
Done. I shall head across to the main article later. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"In 1859–60, Burges took over from Poynter in the restoration of Waltham Abbey" - suggest "took over the restoration of Waltham Abbey from Poynter"
Yet more to come this evening and/or tomorrow - --GuillaumeTell 17:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. Shall address them tomorrow.
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Haven't quite addressed them all yet, and we may have a few queries, but I did want to thank you very much for your excellent review of the sources. Everything you picked up has been exceptionally helpful and much improved the article's accuracy. You do have an absolutely deadly eye for detail. I hope you don't mind, but I've struck through those comments which I think we've addressed - I was developing a major headache trying to work out what still needed to be done. I think I've accurately struck those we've done and left those we have yet to do, but do, of course, revert if I've made an error.KJP1 (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. I think we've addressed most of them but would appreciate clarification on the following:
FN143 when you reviewed it, now FN147. You indicate a problem with page formatting but we can't see what it is.
Now 151, uses hyphen instead of endash. 158 is also missing a period.Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Done and done. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
FN259 when you reviewed it, now FN266. You indicate a formatting problem but we can't see what it is.
Now 271, you're using a comma format where other refs use periods, and are missing a retrieval date for the URL.Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
FN179 when you reviewed it, now FN186. This is a sales catalogue from Vost's Auctioneers. It's not on the web, as far as I can see, it's not a Google book and it has no ISBN. Advice on what's wrong with the formatting would be appreciated.KJP1 (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This seems to correspond to an entry on the References list, but is not linked, and the italicization doesn't match.Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Now worked out what the problem is and resolved. KJP1 (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, you ask "How are you ordering sources with the same author(s)?" Neither Dr. B nor I are sure what the issue is here. Could you clarify?KJP1 (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
When you have multiple sources by the same author (for example, Crook), you can order these in the References list either by date or by title. I wondered which you were doing, as it doesn't seem to be consistent.Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
They are but Crook's books are both 1981 so we had to include the date and a/b to differentiate. Is this what you mean?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
"Despite the protestations of fellow competitors, it won, though the final cost was to be in excess of £100,000." - source?
Definitely done, now. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"Pevsner and Wharton or Lloyd?
Done, I think? I'd messed up and included Wharton's surname in the list of authors of the 1967 Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, which was only authored by Pevsner and Lloyd. Can you let me know if I haven't addressed the right problem. KJP1 (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
FN41, 209, 223, Karlin: doubled period
Done, I think. I realise I've made this somewhat more difficult by adding some footnotes in respect of the three instances you identified below, where referenced works weren't actually cited in the text. As a consequence, the footnotes in the article as it now stands don't match the numbering as it was when you did your review. But I think I can work it out by going from an earlier version of the article. I shall know better next time. KJP1 (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
FN120: citation incomplete, missing italicization
Done. Presuming that the incompleteness relates solely to the lack of italicization. KJP1 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
NOT DONE. Dr. Blofeld, this relates to what is now FN129, Sherwood and Pevsner's Oxfordshire. But I don't know what's wrong with the formatting. Can you help.KJP1 (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Now Done, I think I may have sorted this. When getting the references in alphabetic order, I found I'd put Pevsner first and Sherwood second as the authors, when it is, in fact, the other way round. So, assuming this is the issue referred to, it's sorted. KJP1 (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. p=291. KJP1 (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
FN143: page formatting
NOT DONE. Dr. Blofeld, this relates to what is now FN145, Christopher Drew Armstrong's article. But I don't know what's wrong with the formatting. Can you help. KJP1 (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Now Done. See above. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. p=504. But done correctly? It's now FN149. KJP1 (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
FN151, 153, 200, 202: what kind of sources are these?
First, due to my adding extra footnotes, these are now, FN153, 156, 205 and 207.
FN153 is a source, Marks, within a source, Crook (1981a) I don't know how to quote a source within a source. What I will do is just quote the Crook page. Can somebody tell me if this is wrong.KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
FN184 - This is a sales catalogue from Vost's Auctioneers. It's not on the web, as far as I can see, it's not a Google book and it has no ISBN. Advice on what's wrong with the formatting would be appreciated.KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Now done - see above. KJP1 (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
FN196 - I think this relates to a superfluous "&". Shall try to correct.KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, can't. The FN reads "Crook & 1981a Explanation. I can't see where the "&" is coming from, however.KJP1 (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Dr B has somehow sorted it. KJP1 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
No citations to Burges 2009, Cherry & Pevsner 2002, Sargent 1977
Done for Burges. Text and FN181. KJP1 (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done for Cherry and Pevsner (2002). Text and FN153. KJP1 (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done for Sargent. Text and FN169. KJP1 (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Buckingham: Don't need to say "The book does not have an ISBN Number." for books of that age, but does it have an OCLC?
Removed. Looked in google books, no isbn or OCLC unless I'm mistaken?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books
Removed two mentions of location, should be OK now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
How are you ordering sources with the same author(s)?
NOT DONE. Dr. Blofeld, I'll need to pass on this as well. Can you help. Again, I'll do it, if you tell me what needs doing.KJP1 (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Now done, we think. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieval dates aren't required for Google Books, but if you're going to include them you should be consistent.Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done, I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll need some assistance on this, can't see anything wrong with citation 128 or 144, How are you ordering sources with the same author? etc. Can somebody help out with the sources here? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Now done, we think. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
"This may have resulted from his father's own connection with the 2nd Marquess, Alfred Burges's engineering firm, Walker, Burges and Cooper, having undertaken work on the East Bute Docks at Cardiff in 1855. The 3rd Marquess of Bute...": a bit convoluted - suggest "This may have resulted from Alfred Burges's engineering firm (Walker, Burges and Cooper) having worked for the 2nd Marquess on the East Bute Docks at Cardiff in 1855. The 3rd Marquess [no need for "of Bute" again], who was..." or similar.
"landed aristocrat, industrial magnate, antiquarian, scholar, philanthropist, High Tory, and Roman Catholic convert": some of this is repeated later in the para - "But, as a scholar, antiquarian, compulsive builder and enthusiastic medievalist ..." - suggest amalgamating these strings by adding "compulsive builder and enthusiastic medievalist" to the first and replacing the second with the sentence beginning "Bute brought more than money [etc.]"
"In the early nineteenth century, the original Norman castle had been enlarged and refashioned by Henry Holland for the 2nd Marquess, Bute's father." I don't think that this is accurate. As I understand it (from Newman's Glamorgan), all that was left of the Norman castle was the Keep, the (rebuilt) perimeter walls, the Black Tower and a few bits of wall that were later incorporated in the Western Apartments, built in the 15th and 16th century. Holland's work started around 1776 and the 2nd Marquess was born in 1793!
Done. Heavens, you saved us from a major error there! I should have checked the pre-Burges period more thoroughly.
"Bute" is mentioned twice in the first para - it ought to be made clearer that this is the 3rd Marquess.
"Forest of Deanashlar" - no mention of ashlar in the F of D article. Newman (p.36) reveals that this is sandstone.
Checked. I haven't changed this as I think we're ok. It is sandstone but Girouard says ashlar and Wikipedia describes ashlar as "prepared stone work (i.e., dressed, cut) of any type of stone" (my italics). That said, I could make it sandstone if you think it would be clearer but we do have the link. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. It certainly should. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
"The Marquess's name, John, in Greek" - Newman says "John, in Greek letters". It would be nice to reproduce the Greek letters here (I'm sure that WP does Greek letters).
NOT DONE - yet. That would indeed be very nice. I shall try it but both my Greek, and my dexterity with Wiki fonts are poor.KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I've now found a picture of Bute's bedroom in Williams's "The essential Cardiff Castle" (pp 26-7) and the name is in capitals, and looks like this: ΙΩΑИΣ (forwards, but also backwards as in a mirror). That's approximately IOANS, i.e. something like Johannes. --GuillaumeTell 21:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. Excellent! KJP1 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
"extensive reconstructions on the outlines of the walls of the original Roman fort" - what does this mean? Reconstructions of what? Outlines?? Newman's p.209 mentions the reconstruction of the Roman walls and that's it.
Done, I hope. You're right, a poor sentence which I've tried to make clearer. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
"nine sculptures by Thomas Nicholls, with a further six being sculpted in the 1930s" - I don't think we need "being". And it might be worth mentioning that the six were by Alexander Carrick and that it was William Frame who continued Burges's work after his death.
Done, done and done. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Onwards to Castell Coch, etc. --GuillaumeTell 18:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
"Castell Coch was built on the site of a thirteenth-century castle"in the 2nd para more or less duplicates the description in the first para, except that one says fort and the other says castle. Suggest starting para with "Severely damaged..."
"Girouard states it is King David while McLees suggests it depicts St Lucius." Suggest inserting "that" after "states" and after "suggests". Is King David the David-and-Goliath (David) in the Bible or another King David? And which Saint Lucius is the correct one? (Newman votes for St Lucius over King David, btw.)
Done and done. Although I'm not sure I can answer the questions. I would say King David is the biblical King David and is there really more than one St Lucius?. Actually, I know the St Lucius is the legendary King of Britain who introduced Christianity. But I can't remember where I read that and will check my books. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Suggest that the Three Fates image move down a few lines so that it appears closer to the Three Fates text at the end of the para.
"significant; Gillingham suggesting that..." - if using semi-colon, then "significant; Gillingham suggests that...", otherwise use comma instead of semi-colon ("significant, Gillingham suggesting that...")
Still on the chapel, it might be worth mentioning that the stained glass and the ceiling paintings are by Henry Holiday and perhaps also that the statues, lectern and candlesticks are by William Grinsell Nicholl (1796-1871), who also made the reredos for Waltham Abbey (abbey) in 1862 (and carved decorations for the exteriors of the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, the Oxford and Cambridge Club in London, the Taylor Institution in Oxford and St George's Hall, Liverpool - maybe I could knock up a stub for him). Interestingly, the carved animals on the bench-ends are by a Mr Fisher, rather than Nicholls - so none of Burges's usual team seem to have been involved. I wonder why?
Done. But I think a couple of sources are therefore needed. Sherwood and Pevsner doesn't help. Help!KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Fixed - Chapel, not Hall(!), and extra S&P ref does provide the details. --GuillaumeTell 10:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Hall - not exactly a sequel, as it was done somewhat after the Chapel - dates needed.
I've made a couple of minor alterations which I hope are uncontroversial. Also, in the blue Lonely Planet quote box, who is Mallory? Is this a brainstorm version of Heathcoat-Amery? And did he really have a boudoir (I associate them with ladies rather than gentlemen, but perhaps he was a transvestite)?
I don't know Mallory either. Can the Dr. assist? As to the boudoir, the NT guide, the only single volume I have on the house, describes it as "an essentially feminine retreat." So I think it unlikely it was Sir John's, but one never knows.KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I think its a printing error. I've added a note in the ref as I believe the quote is informative and useful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Now done, with Dr. B's note. KJP1 (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
"This can be seen evidenced in many of Cardiff's inner suburbs, where traces of Burges's influence can be seen." Well, if Park House really was widely imitated, then "traces" can't be right - something stronger is needed. Also, "seen" twice in the same sentence doesn't look right. And I think this sentence needs a ref, e.g. Newman's para, p.219, starting "Further N" (or maybe move the ref from the previous sentence to this one).
Heading: Suggest "Christ the Consoler, St Mary's, and St Paul's Cathedral" instead of just St Paul's, otherwise it looks like three churches rather than the two mentioned immediately in the text (and St Paul's doesn't reappear until the last para).
Important note: Pevsner & Radcliffe have been superseded by Leach, Peter (2009). Yorkshire West Riding: Leeds, Bradford and the North. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN978-0-300-12665-5.Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) and the Pevsner quote has disappeared. If you don't have access to this I can update the description. Same applies to St Mary, Studley Royal (where I see that there is an 1873 house by Burges in the grounds). There's also more detail on Oakwood Hall and probably other Burges works in the northern W Riding (15 references in the index).
Noted with thanks. Dear Lord, you're determined to increase the size of this article even more! Fortunately, I do have Leach and Pevsner and have added it to the References, and also added a couple of comments from it re. Skelton and Studley Royal. I shall also add some extra details to the main articles, including the reference to the estate house at Studley Royal. But not here, I think, and not until this is done and dusted. Unless of course, your nudging me in the direction of those 15 index references throws up something that can't be ignored. In which case, it'll be a repeat of Worcester College and I'll need to add a whole new section. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Your comments have improved the article greatly and are much appreciated. Even if it does sometimes seem like a second GAR! KJP1 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Luckily for me, on checking the 15 Leach references, I don't find anything that really demands inclusion. Apart from Oakwood, Skelton and Studley Royal, they refer either to competitions for civic buildings that he didn't win or to his influence upon others. Except for some gate piers at Newby Hall, of which I wasn't aware. Whilst I don't think they need mentioning, they do need visiting. P.S. You shall certainly enjoy the Gillingham. And no, I didn't know she was the wife of the last Provost. Looking forward to the remaining comments. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"In the same year, the only full study of Burges was published, Crook's William Burges and the High Victorian Dream." - suggest "In the same year, the only full study of Burges, Crook's William Burges and the High Victorian Dream, was published."
right at the end, "Philosophy cabinet, 1878–79 – designed for the guest bedroom at Tower House" - OK, but where is it? If not known, then it needs "present location unknown" as in some other pieces above.
Done. It's owned by Andrew Lloyd-Weber, and sits in Sydmonton Court amongst his rather splendid collection of Pre-Raphaelite pictures but I can't find a reliable source to confirm this. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm a but dubious about these:
Victorian architecture - no mention of Burges (nor any picture of any of his works) in this rather short article.
Removed. I agree they add little to the study of Burges and if one doesn't know, by the end of the article, that Burges was a Victorian architect working in the Gothic Revival tradition, one hasn't read it very carefully. I've also removed the only external link. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
That seems to be it!
Support Long, but very informative and readable - a labour of love, in fact. --GuillaumeTell 17:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It is a labour of quite long-standing love. But, for all my affection for Burges, I could never have made the article what it now is, without contributions such as your own. I appreciate it hugely. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Image/spot checks? Don't think I can see either of these above, we'll need people to perform them before we wrap up this review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Images should all be fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
As the Dr. says, I think all the images will be fine. But I'm not really eligible to say this, so if someone else was able to do so, I shall try to respond as promptly as possible, in the event that any issues are raised. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Am I eligible to do a spot check? I reviewed the article at GAN, and have contributed extensively above, though my contribution to the article itself has been de minimis. If I qualify as a disinterested party I shall be happy to nip down to the British Library and spot-check a sample of the citations for accuracy and for innocence of excessively close paraphrase. – Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, I don't think I can comment on your eligiblity, but if you are able to do so, I would appreciate it enormously. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Go for it. I think you can be more than trusted to ensure the spot check is done correctly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I have ordered Girouard, Crook and Lawrence at the British Library and will check against them tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. I don't anticipate any difficulties but it is, of course, quite possible that I've made a mistake. I have them all here so should be able to respond very promptly to any queries. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, Tim, I must confess that when I asked for the spotcheck, I had you in mind -- it hadn't escaped my notice that you'd already been involved in the review and I was hoping to see you do more... ;-) Seriously, your involvement in the article itself would be the key thing COI-wise, and as you say that's relatively minor -- so pls go for it, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Done the tag. Hope the lifetime's not critical. KJP1 (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Please don't cross out my comments; I will cross them out if they have been addressed. If you are to use PD-Old or the like, you need at least a death date for persons from the 19th century or later. A person aged 20 in 1872 may have died as late as 1945, or later.
It is, a bit, but I can't find an image that better shows the castle's frontage. Not sure what the required info. box should contain but will try. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC) If the information box is not absolutely essential, can I ask that someone with more understanding of these matters than I, add it. KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
A little faint maybe but I'm of the opinion its a better image that the one you suggest. It looks dull not to mention the cars being an eyesore... This is better and can be uploaded if desired? ♦Dr. Blofeld 13:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The latter done but shall need to think about the former. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Still needs a link. "Internet" is not a valid source statement. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Side note: Current FNs 36, 111, 119, 140, 149, and 163 are showing up as errors with Ucucha's script. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Still many formatting errors in the footnotes (missing years, commas, and the use of the wrong code for italics). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Spot check of sources
1 – fine
4 – The source doesn't actually say this, but the inference is entirely justified
6 – fine
*9 – I can't find this in in the source
I see what you mean. I've re-worded as "Burges's work with Wyatt, particularly on the Medieval Court for this exhibition, was influential on the subsequent course of his career." I think this is supported by Crook's ""Wyatt's influence set Burges on a path which shaped much of his career." I'd be loathe to lose all reference to the Medieval Court as it was B's work with W on this that had a greater influence on him than any other aspect of his apprenticeship to Wyatt. KJP1 (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
11a and b – fine
12 – All the places are mentioned in Crook, but on pp. 44–48, not 53
Corrected. I've put 45-50 but I agree you could say 44-48, the earlier covering his first French visit and the latter covering his arrival in Turkey, not his departure. KJP1 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
14a and b – fine
15 – The source confirms the Japanese element but makes no mention on the cited page of Moorish influences or the Arab Room
You're right. I've added both Near and Far, and changed the first reference to p.51. I was trying to say two things in one sentence. The new referencing is supported by Crook "the art of Islamic Cairo became a key ingredient" p.51, and his reference to the Japanese Court on p.52. KJP1 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
26a, b, and c – fine
27 – fine
37 – fine
45a and b – fine
45c – I can't find this in the source
Quite right. It's p.200. ""Cork would never be able to afford a really large cathedral." Changed. KJP1 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
48a – ditto
Corrected. 199, not 190. KJP1 (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
48b – fine
49 – fine
50 – fine
51 – fine
54 – fine
55 – fine
57 – fine
59 – There's no mention that I could find in the cited source of "best glass" or of St FB's Cathedral.
Again, I see what you mean. P.188 gives his starting work with B and I've added 204 which gives details of Saunders working at St FB. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
61 – fine
62 – I can't find this in the cited source
Corrected. 305, ".. employed by Messrs. Burges and Walker on Cardiff's Bute East Dock."
63a – I can't find this in the cited source
Corrected 259, "Bute's potential as a patron was vast: Burges released the spring." Apologies. No idea what happened to these two. KJP1 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
63b – fine
69 – fine
75a and b – fine
85 – fine
90 – fine
100 – fine
105 – fine
110 – fine
113 – fine
121a and b – fine
121c – correct page is 239, not 238, and these aren't Crook's words but those of the obituarist in The Echo
Corrected to p.239 and re-attributed. KJP1 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
123 – fine
125 – fine (We won't fall out over the omitted 11 shilliings)
126 – fine
129 – fine
130 – I can't find this in the cited source
Nor can I. Changed to Cherry and Pevsner "were toned down and altered." KJP1 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
136 – fine
137 – I can't find this in the cited source
Unfortunately, neither can I. Removed cite. KJP1 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
138 – The source doesn't say this in so many words, but the interpretation here is justified, IMO.
142 – fine
153a–c – fine
154a and b – fine
156 – fine
157 – fine
158 – fine
161 – fine
165 – fine
179 – fine
185 – fine
192 – fine
201a and b – fine
202a and b – fine
204 – fine
210 – fine
211 – fine
212 – fine
213 – fine
214 – fine
215 – fine
216 – fine
217 – fine
218 – fine
221a and b – fine
222a and b – fine
226 – fine – fine
236 – fine
237 – fine
238 – fine
239 – fine
253 – fine
266 – fine
267 – fine
268 – fine
269 – fine
270 – fine
271 – fine
272 – fine
273 – fine
277 – fine
279 – fine
281 – fine
284 – fine
285 – fine
Lawrence and Wilson
40a – I couldn't find in the text anything relating to the "Early French" reference or to the quote.
Me neither. Removed. KJP1 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
40b – fine
43a and b – fine
44 – fine
46 – fine
52a and b – fine
69a and b – fine
182 – fine except that Lawrence (like all right-thinking people) spells "mediaeval" thus
"All right thinking people", except Fowler, of course. KJP1 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Devoted as I am to Fowler, he had his off-moments, e.g. urging us to eschew "chiropodist" in favour of "corn-cutter".Tim riley (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
183 – fine
184 – fine
223 – fine
76a – fine, except for the ashlar, of which Girouard makes no mention
Done by moving citation. KJP1 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
76b – fine
78 – fine
80a – three words in brackets in the source are omitted in your quotation with no indication that you have edited it; three dots wanted here, I think
84a – Girouard is not as definite as you represent him as being: he says that the room "appears" to be B's last work, and Bute "probably" had the initials put there as a memorial
Caveated, appropriately, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
84b – fine
97 – This was the only bit of paraphrasing that struck me as in any way dubious. Your text reads, "Burges defended their use by reference to a body of doubtful historical evidence, but, in truth, he incorporated them for their architectural effect". The original reads, "Burges supported his roofs with a considerable body of examples of doubtful validity; the truth was that he wanted them for their architectural effect." I'd say that's much too similar for comfort.
That's my fault. In removing the long quote that was there I reworded it slightly and didn't have the Crook source at my fingertips to be aware of that... I've changed it to a quote.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I checked the four JSTOR references, 152, 193, 227 and 241, which are all fine, as regards both accuracy and freedom from close paraphrase.
Where I have said, above, that I couldn't find something in the source I mean just that; Crook, in particular, is in fairly dense prose, and I shall be quite happy to be told that I have overlooked something I was seeking. – Tim riley (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the responses above and consequent changes to the text. Tim riley (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Delegate note -- while we're on the subject of sources/citations, there are a few spots where I'd expect to see citations as a matter of course, mainly at the end of paragraphs:
Cardiff Castle -- 4th para
Done. Crook a p.84. KJP1 (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Done by removing text. KJP1 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Personal life -- "Contemporaries referred to Burges's child-like nature; Dante Gabriel Rossetti composed a limerick about him (see box)." (either this sentence or the quote box referred to should be cited).
I ran across this in Girouaud (I think - or if not Lawrence) this morning, if that helps KJP1 track it down.Tim riley (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I HAVE TO SAY I COULD HAVE DONE WITHOUT WIKIPEDIA HAVING A SERVER PROBLEM ON THE VERY NIGHT I TRY TO FINISH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KJP1 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This is really becoming very, very trying. 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
A question about the References section
I'm not well up on the minutiae of this section, but I've noticed that only one author in the References list has an authorlink to his/her Wikipedia article - and that is the only one supplied by me (Falconer Madan)! I had a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see whether there's any guidance on this but there doesn't seem to be anything (or else I'm looking in the wrong place). Personally, I would link all authors who have WP articles when they first appear in the Refs section (e.g. Christopher Hibbert, Elizabeth Eastlake, maybe others) unless they're already linked in the text of the article (which a lot of them are, e.g. Pevsner, Crook, Betjeman - but it might be helpful if they were also linked in the Refs section as well). Anyway, I'd be happier if people who know more about this than I do could point to some guidance somewhere that sayeth yea or nay. --GuillaumeTell 09:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I see exactly what you mean and having a single linked author in the references certainly looks odd. I have no idea what the "right" answer is but I hope you will forgive my solution, with which I fear you won't be entirely happy. I've de-linked Madan. I've neither the heart, nor the energy nor the skill, nor even, this evening, the enthusiasm for the article, to try and link all the others and I fear I would just make a mess. If there is a MOS ruling which says they should all be linked, please could someone with more wiki editing skill than I undertake the task. KJP1 (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't link any of them, that's easiest...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. I think there is only one issue remaining from the above. This is:
The latter done but shall need to think about the former. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The picture is hugely valuable to the article and I should be loathe to lose it. Can somebody address Crisco 1492 (talk)'s concerns, to whom I repeat my thanks for a wonderfully thorough image review. Alternatively, I could delete it because the article can survive its loss.
Subject to the resolution of the above, I believe all issues raised at FAC have been addressed. KJP1 (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
While (not whilst) being in the happy position of not having any FAC comments to address, I did want to record my enormous thanks to all of the editors who have improved this article; with no apology, I make specific mention of Cassianto for his unflagging interest and insightful comments, Crisco 1492 for his invaluable image review, User:GuillaumeTell for his second GAR, and for his humour and User:Tim riley for his orginal GAR which drove the article forward, for his source review and for his unfailing support. Lastly, User:Dr Blofeld - the first to see the article's potential, the first to see that I could be made to learn some rudiments of wikipedia editing, the first to provide encouragement when I most needed it, and this article's co-author. KJP1 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Delegate's note - Please address Crisco's remaining comments on the reference formatting and the image source, this can be done post FAC. My thanks to the reviewers. Graham Colm (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.