Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Goddards

Thoughts

So, to take the specific question first, "is it a credible GAN", yes, it certainly is. I think you've done an excellent job of assembling the coverage from a range of RS, particularly given that, while interesting, Goddards may not be considered among the first rank of Lutyens' works. A quick glance over the criteria shows that it is:

  • Well-written
  • Verifiable with no original research
  • Broad in its coverage:
  • Neutral
  • Stable
  • Illustrated

Obviously, I can't foresee what a reviewer may take issue with, and there's always an element of pot-luck at GAN, but I'd be very surprised if anything major was identified as a stumbling block. One point, Earwig's Copvio Detector is giving a 46.5% with the Landmark Trust PDF, [1]. When you scrutinise the similarities, it's actually mostly quotes/common wordings, but you may be able to prevent any concerns by a bit of re-wording.

‘‘Twas ever thus! KJP1 (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On to specifics:

History
  • Penultimate para. "In the same year, the Halls hosted an exhibition on Lutyens, which helped to revive interest both in the architect's work and in the wider Arts and Crafts movement" - I don't know what Richardson says, but I would have thought the 1981 Hayward Gallery exhibition was more influential in rescuing Lutyens's reputation.
  • Final para. - worth mentioning that you can rent the whole thing, as well as visit, given that you generally can with Landmark properties, [2]?
House
  • First para. "the philosophy of his mentor, Randolph Caldecott", does Hussey really call him "mentor"? Need to check. And now have. Hussey says "one of those mentors...", so I shouldn't quibble, but I will! For me, describing Caldecott as "L's mentor" suggests he was the major influence on/the guiding practitioner for L, which I don't think is true, particularly as he wasn't an architect. I think one of the many interesting things about L was how little he was influenced by his contemporaries, certainly he himself suggested he learnt little from his pupillages. For me, I'd go for something like, "For Goddards, Lutyens followed the philosophy of one of his major early influences, the artist Randolph Caldecott, in creating a traditional country building..."
  • Fifth para. Somewhat surprisingly, Ridley (p=29) states that the original building had no bathrooms, as it was designed to be used only in the summer months. Presumably they had hip baths taken to the bedrooms. Worth a mention?
  • Final para. - "The majority of the oil paintings at Goddards are by Charles Augustus Lutyens", should mention he's ELL's father.
Critical responses
  • To your point on the section itself, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a Reactions section. Plenty of critics have opined on the building. Personally, I might call it Appreciation, as indeed it is in the Randolph Caldecott article, to avoid the negative impression some will take from the word "critical", but actually I think your title will do fine.
  • I think I would include Ian Nairn's strictures, which could follow quite nicely from the Butler/Stewart/Hussey comment. I've only got a reprint of the 1971 Revised, so it would be worth checking the 2022 if you have it available. Something like; the critic Ian Nairn echoed this point in the Surrey volume in the Pevsner Buildings of England series; "a promising asymetrical style ruined by slack elevations and a remarkably unhappy choice of materials..."{p=86}
Notes
  • a - I don't think one can say Chesters was built by RNS, as it's an C. 18th house by Carr. Remodelled, with the splayed wings, certainly. Perhaps, "One of the earliest houses in Britain to have splayed wings is Chesters in Northumberland, which was remodelled by Richard Norman Shaw in 1891."
Bibliography
  • Is Pevsner not credited as an author in the 2022 revised Surrey? Worldcat does, [3].
  • The hard copy of the 2022 edition describes Pevsner as a "founding editor", but doesn't list him as an author. The British Library catalogue says that Pevsner is an "editor" for the 2022 edition, so I have added him using the |editor tags. Mertbiol (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridley’s full title is “The Architect and His Wife: A Life of Edwin Lutyens”
Possible additional sources
I think you've done a very effective scrape, and I can't find much to suggest. However:

Very best of luck with it. I think it will make a fine GA. Let me know if anything needs clarifying. KJP1 (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @KJP1: This is a very helpful and highly detailed review. Thank you for giving up a significant chunk of your Sunday to read through the article and to give your thoughts! This really is super feedback – and far more than I could have ever reasonably expected!
I made a quick dash to the local library at lunchtime today, primarily to check the 2022 Pevsner guide. I have made some changes as a result of your feedback (and have also given a few responses above). The three additional sources that you have recommended will probably need a trip to the British Library, which I won't be able to visit for a couple of weeks.
I will nominate for GA now, if only to get the article "in the queue", but will make a few more additions when I'm able to get to London.
Thanks again for your thoughts and I'll let you know how the GA review goes. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure - if you have email activated, I could scan the three additional sources, and mail them. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goddards/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 17:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 10:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Starting first read-through now. Comments to follow shortly. Tim riley talk 10:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This is a pleasing article and I expect to be able to promote it to GA. But first a few preliminary comments, most of which are merely stylistic and to be acted on or not as you think fit.

  • Lead
  • "The majority of the building has been leased..." – I don't think you can have the majority of a single entity. The OED defines "majority" as "The greater number or part; a number which is more than half the total number, esp. of votes". Here I think you need "most" or "much"
Done Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • History
  • "stands to the southeast of the Lutyens house" – the OED hyphenates "south-east"
Done Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1898, shipping magnate Frederick Mirrielees" – clunky false title. Later in the text you avoid this tabloidese construction and I suggest you do so here, and in "constructed by local building firm, Harrisons" in the same paragraph
Done Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The majority of the women who stayed at Goddards were single and were generally employed as nurses or governesses" – slightly ambiguous: I think you mean that most of them were nurses or governesses rather than that they were employed most of the time. I suggest deleting "generally"
Done Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Landmark Trust leased the majority of the house" – as above.
Done Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • House
  • "colourwashed rough-cast stone" – the OED hyphenates "colour-wash.
Done Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the writer, Dominic Bradbury, notes" – you should lose the commas here as they turn what is plainly meant to be a restrictive phrase into a non-restrictive one, making Mr Bradbury the only writer in existence.
Done Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The library and dining room, on the ground floor, are each dominated by an inglenook fireplace, and the latter has wooden panelling" – the latter of what? The fireplaces, presumably, but that isn't what the sentence says. The OED hyphenates "ingle-nook".
Done Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lutyens' father" – I think this should have ess-apostrophe-ess at the end, as in Hussey (1984), Ridley (2002), Tankard (2011). This is from the current (2015) edition of Fowler: Names ending in -s. Use 's for the possessive case in names and surnames whenever possible; in other words, whenever you would tend to pronounce the possessive form of the name with an extra iz sound, e.g. Charles's brother, St James's Square, Thomas's niece, Zacharias's car.
Done Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The datestone above the front door" – the OED hyphenates "date-stone".
Done Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gardens
  • "it was intended to be low maintenance" – the OED hyphenates "low-maintenance"
Done Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A vine planted by Jekyll in 1900 still survives – careful of WP:DATED here: it would be as well to say that it still survives in 2024.
Done Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical responses
  • "In his 2005 book, English gardens in the twentieth century" – sentence case won't do for the title. You can see from the title page that the title is "English Gardens in the Twentieth Century". Even if, for some typographer's whim, sentence case, or even all lower case, were on the title page, Wikipedia's house style is to render titles in title case. (And as the book is available in the Internet Archive it seems a bit mean not to add the url in the Bibliography section.) The same objection to the absence of title case goes for The iconic house and Landmark : A history of Britain in 50 buildings.
Done Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a promising asymetrical style" – I doubt if Nairn misspelled "asymmetrical", but if he did we can either [sic] it or silently correct the spelling (MOS:SIC).
Nairn didn’t, and Mertbiol is only guilty of cut-and-pasting what was my initial error (see above)! Sorry. KJP1 (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might have known that in an article about an English country house I'd find KJP1 lurking in the background. Good to see you, dear boy! Tim riley talk 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the quotation from Daniel O'Neill you misspell "rigour" – which O'Neill does not.
Fixed Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brian Edwards writes: "Much of the beauty of [Lutyens'] buildings derives from ..." – I think this is a bit misleading: Edwards is not writing about Lutyens's buildings in general but of Goddards in particular: "Much of the beauty of these buildings derives from their odd, sometimes disturbing, proportion".
Fixed Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography
  • My comments, above, about title case apply here, to most of the titles. Title case should be used for all the books.
Fixed Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be a kindness to your readers to add the urls of all the listed books that are available at the Internet Archive. These, as far as I can see, are Hussey (1989), Ridley (2002) and Richardson (2005).
Added all three, as well as Powers (2005) Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over to you. I'll put the review on hold for a week to give you time to address these points. – Tim riley talk 12:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Tim riley: for taking on yet another of my nominations to review and for your comments. I think I have addressed everything so far. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria In my judgment this article could be a worthy candidate for WP:FAC.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I found this an interesting and instructive article to review. It gives me great pleasure to promote it to GA. - Tim riley talk 18:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Tim riley: for your very diligent review and thanks again to @KJP1: for their comments on the talk page last week. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goddards