Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ham House/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2021 [1].


Ham House[edit]

Nominator(s): Isaksenk (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 17th-century stately home which sits along the Thames on the outskirts of London. The house and its gardens form a rare picture of the style of the courts of Charles I and II, as the family who owned the property sought (over the centuries) to preserve the grandeur of the era. Over the last year, a group of National Trust volunteers, who would normally be sharing the stories of the house with visitors, have spent the time in lockdown documenting the details of the house, gardens, collections and the people who lived there. As a highly-researched property, there is a wealth of academic literature upon which to draw, and we have done our best to provide a complete survey of the property and the people who created it. Isaksenk (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

You're lucky that in UK there is freedom of panorama for publicly accessible interiors. In some pictures there are also artistic works visible, but all of them look to be either de minimis, old enough to be out of copyright, or both. However, there are some harv errors in the references that need to be fixed. (t · c) buidhe 20:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe I believe the harv errors are addressed now, but please let me know if I've misunderstood.Isaksenk (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it looks like it's been fixed. (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I've only browsed, but the section on the National Trust could be bulked up. It would be helpful to include stuff about tourism (it receives ~70,000 visitors a year), conservation of the building and collections, curation and interpretation (eg: exhibitions, grants), etc. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard Nevell appreciate your feedback. We didn't delve too deeply into topics around the current curation & experience as we wanted to avoid any whiff of promotion, given that we are a group of NT volunteers at the house. We could expand this section, but wanted to err on the side of caution. However, willing to take advice on that. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That approach makes a lot of sense. It might be worth preparing some text which could be added in and seeing what the FAC crowd think. The declaration at the start of the nomination means the editing community can decide if text is neutral or promotional. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with Richard. A short additional paragraph on the end of "National Trust" covering what happens at the property right now would seem to be in order. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Richard and Gog the Mild I suspect that a statement regarding current curation, conservation efforts and exhibitions would require the involvement of NT HQ - not something I am able to provide in short order unfortunately. Isaksenk (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may be looking too deeply into this. Sadly you can't use the NT's own web site or guide to the house as it would be a primary source, but I don't think that we are asking for much more than is probably in there. (I haven't looked.). But is there not a local council guide or similar? ("Stately Homes in Greater London" or whatever.) Or something in a reputable newspaper. The fact that the information is lifted from NT material, possibly a press release, doesn't matter; the editorial control and independence makes it a secondary source. So long as it is "reliable" in Wikipedia terms, you can cite to it. Does that help? Richard Nevell may have a different view. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a great believer in the imprimatur conveyed by local press repeating a press release. Obviously, when there is opposition to plans, as there so often is with the NT, that is where they come into their own. One thing I'd like to know is if there is any RS coverage of the horrible accident a few years back, when a falling temporary Lely reproduction took out a mantelpiece-full of oriental porcelain. That won't be on the NT website, we may be sure. In the case of the easily accessible visitor figures (see current bottom), the only feasible source is the NT themselves, & it is fine to use them. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Most recent press dwells on more specific topics such as the slavery & colonialism report, the "siesta" policy and our resident cat. I did find this article which does actually address the topic of curation, but obviously it's more of a historical survey. I'm aware of the conservation projects due to the volunteer communications, but of course it's not something for which I can provide sources. I'm not sure what else to offer. Isaksenk (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added in the 2018/19 visitor numbers. I think Richard N is quite right in thinking we should have them, as they are an important element of the Trust’s stewardship. I’ve used the Annual Report as the source. I appreciate that some may think this a primary source, which it clearly is, but I think it is acceptable. It is the published record of the Trust’s yearly activities, signed off by its management board, and independently audited by the Trust’s auditors. It think it should therefore meet the requirement for reliability. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good - "primary" is a non-issue, as the NT is the only possible source for visitor numbers, and recycling them through any secondary source will only reduce their reliability. It's the same with the sizes of paintings, as owners don't let passing art historians bring their own ladders and tape measures. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

I reviewed the article for GAN and thought then and think now that what emerged was ready for FAC. At 8,600 words it's quite a biggie for an article on a single house (and garden) but I don't see any superfluous material. I press-ganged my friend and colleague KJP1 into adding his input at GAN, and I look forward to his expert comments here, but from my own, less expert but greatly interested, viewpoint this is a first-class article, well written, comprehensive without going into too much detail, balanced, well proportioned and beautifully illustrated. It has been no hardship whatever to reread it for the current review – quite the opposite. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 19:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim riley we do appreciate your guidance and support. Isaksenk (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1[edit]

I had the pleasure of commenting on this article at Peer Review/GA and Isaksenk and their Ham House colleagues have done a superb job of taking a detailed, but weakly-sourced, article to the excellent state it is now in. I shall comment shortly and hope other editors will join in reviewing an excellent collaborative effort. KJP1 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC) As indicated above, I commented on this at peer review and at GA and, for disclosure, made some minor edits myself. I think it is a grand article that fully warrants FA status. The editors, led by Isaksenk, who have worked on it have created a well-written and comprehensive study, that is also well-illustrated and well-cited, which gives readers an excellent overview of the house, its history, architecture, and its collection, which is arguably more important than the house itself. On the matter of citations, there are just three areas where I think further citation would be helpful:[reply]

  • Elizabeth and John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale - the third para. ends with a sentence on jib doors. I think this would benefit from a cite;
  • North Drawing Room - the third para. ends with a sentence on the popularity of Four Seasons tapestries. Again, a cite would be good.
  • Queen's Apartments - be good to end with a cite. I would hope these can be quite easily picked up from existing Sources, probably Rowell.

As to other comments, there is very little. I think the suggestion above to add a bit more on the National Trust's ownership is excellent. Visitors numbers/conservation/research/etc. I do not think it needs to be that much, and it would fit well at the end of the History section. I'd be pleased to take a look at any suggested wording, in order to address any perception of "promotion". Aside from that, nothing, except a regret that the sources do not make it possible to say a little more on the architect of the first building, and the potential involvement of the Smythsons. I would add thanks to retired editor User:Hchc2009 for their excellent plan. A most helpful addition. Overall, it is a splendid article, and a fine addition to Wikipedia's canon on important buildings. Isaksenk and their fellow editors should be proud and I'm pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KJP1 your support is greatly appreciated. I believe I've now addressed the 3 points above and have also made a small expansion to the end of the History section with the references at my immediate disposal. If more is desired, I'll need to head to the library to seek additional sources. That will take some time however, as my schedule is a bit full at present. Happy to take advice on remaining gaps. Isaksenk (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that looks good. The only bit I might add is visitor numbers but, oddly, I can’t find it in my usual source, [2]. That said, the 2019/20 numbers will be so atypical that they may not add much. Perhaps Richard’s 2009 number? All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kavyansh.Singh[edit]

Viewing Cullen House on the main page as today's featured article reminded me of this one. I gave some minor comments in its peer review, and was astonished by this article's comprehensiveness. The only major issue was citations, which now seems to be tackled. The article is well written and well researched, appropriately illustrated, and is neutral. You and your team have done a great job of improving this article, and I am more than happy to add my support for promotion of this article as a Featured article. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting comments - Resolved[edit]

  • The titles of works should be in title format, eg Cripps.
Sorry, but I don't understand what's being requested here. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in Cripps for example "biography" should have an upper case "B". That is the only case I can find in Sources, but in References a few upper case letters could usefully be inserted for the sake of consistency. Eg in cites 52, 100, 152. Does that help? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you Gog the Mild. However I assume that references to articles, such as cites 234 and beyond can remain as they are? Isaksenk (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. They should adhere to MOS:TITLECAPS. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild OK, I think I've addressed them all now. Thanks.Isaksenk (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malden needs a publisher, a publisher location, an OCLC and a page range.
Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sudeley - no publisher location?
Huntingdon Library indicates London, but publisher unknown. Should publisher just remain blank? Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good question. Let's try that. (Your source reviewer may prefer "Publisher not identified".)
  • Waterhouse: publisher location should be formatted 'New Haven, US; London, not "New Haven, US and London".
Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 21: "p." → 'pp'.
Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly cites 28, 59 and others.
I believe I've corrected all of them now. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are some works listed in References rather than Sources?
I'm a little unclear as to the best approach for referencing format. I captured all books and journal articles used on the References section into the Sources list. I did not include other sources such as websites/online news articles. Should those also be included in the Sources section? Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is acceptable. Drives me crazy, but it is acceptable.
  • Cite 4: no ISSN or JSTOR identifier?
That journal does not appear to be available on JSTOR. I've added the ISSN, but I cannot access the journal myself in order to ascertain page numbers. It was part of the original article - not something that I added. I'd need to get to the BL to determine precise citations. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 190: number ranges should be separated by en dashes, not hyphens.
I believe another editor has used a script to address all the problematic hyphens. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bradley needs a page range.
Unable to address at this time - I'd need to get to the BL to determine precise citations. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now completed Isaksenk (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not a full source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaksenk, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog the Mild I've been able to address a few now, and will be able to return to this at the weekend. We appreciate your guidance.Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I have responded to a couple of your queries. (My brother's family visited on Sunday on the back of my recommendation!) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I've addressed those remaining comments that I'm able to address at this time. Thank you for your feedback. I do hope your family had a pleasant visit. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Iazyges - pass[edit]

  • May wish to move the cited websites into a bibliography section and use sfn's, rather than whole cites, in the body.
  • "Estates of the Tollemache Family of Ham House in Kingston upon Thames, Ham, Petersham and elsewhere: Records, 14th cent–1945". Surrey History Centre. Retrieved 5 September 2012." is a dead link.
Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Airs, Malcolm (1998)" link gives a date of 1995 by WorldCat, either use a 1995 orig-year parameter as used in other cites or switch ISBN to 9781858338330.
Done.
  • "Greeves, Lydia (2008)" link gives publisher as Pavilion Books, may wish to switch the link to WorldCat, as it gives the correct publisher and the Google book is not accessible.
Done.
  • "Ham House, Surrey. Swindon, Wiltshire: The National Trust. 2009" ISBN brings up the original year of 1992/1995, and 1997 and 2005 editions; possibly a fault of WorldCat, but double-check that the ISBN is correct.
Iazyges I have a copy of the 2009 version, which is copyrighted 1995. The ISBN on the inside cover is 978 1 54359 172 6, but when I try those digits, it generates a checksum. I don't know what to do with that. Isaksenk (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is... odd. It seems to be an invalid ISBN; it is suggested on the CS1 help page to check the cover and front matter to see if one IBSN is different from the other. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iazyges The back cover has the number 978 1 84359 172 6, which, as you note above, doesn't actually reference the 2009 reprint. Happy to proceed as you advise. Isaksenk (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's certainly weird, but nothing can really be done about it. Suggest retaining current ISBN as least bad option. Passing the source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "Rowell, Christopher, ed. (2013)" may wish to switch the link to this, as this WorldCat entry contains more details, including the date.
Done.
  • "Sudeley, Ada (1890)" I'm generally against inserting "publisher unknown" in the bibliography, but you may wish to do so.
Done.
  • "Summerson, John (1955)" I'm unable to find the source of the Harmondsworth, Middlesex location for the 1955 edition? I can only find it in a 1993 edition; suggest removing location unless I'm missing something.
Done.
  • "Ward, Evelyn Svec (1953)" insert location of Cleveland, US.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod, part 1[edit]

  • I've enjoyed looking at this less than I expected. It repeats on a grander scale the usual faults of WP articles on historic houses, in particular too much on the family history and too little on the house.
  • It would be tempting to suggest putting all the former, except a brief summary, below the latter.
Done - hopefully in a fashion that enjoys support. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The family history would be easier to follow if people's dates were given when they are first mentioned, and dates given to sentences like: "Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart succeeded to the title on his father's death." and "Wilbraham was aged 60 when he inherited the title.", even if the date is in the previous section.
Done - again, hopefully in a style that makes the choronology easier to follow. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod more clarity is required before I can address this request, specifically on these points:
  • What format is required, both for those with known dates as well as those with uncertain dates?
  • Are references for the dates required?
  • Is it only first mention, or when a mention is repeated? Only for repeats in a later section?
  • Only family members, or other persons related to the story, like Charles I, Adrian Vanson or Ada Sudeley?
  • We know from our research that there are some date conflicts between Pritchard & Rowell - how to address those circumstances?
If there is a style guide that addresses all these items, please point me to it. Otherwise, please state your requirements so I can proceed to address them. Isaksenk (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The treatment of the exterior, which I see had to be prodded for at PR, is perfunctory.
Done - as far as the sources available to us allow. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linking seems to give up almost completely about half-way through (during the rooms, until the filmography); there must a good 30-40 links missing. Even glaringly obvious ones like Mortlake Tapestry Works and Antonio Verrio are missing, but lots more.
Done - I thinking the blue-linking is now complete. Many thanks for those you picked up yourself. I'm sure a few more have been missed. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On points raised above, I agree pre-Covid visitor figures should be given, & I'm fine with the films & tv.
Done - visitor numbers now in and cited. We agree that the media appearances, although though don't find favour with all - including me! - should remain. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later, but I won't do a full read through until work is done on the links. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod - Thanks very much indeed for the initial comments. First, you make a very good point re. the links. I’ve sought to address this and ended up bluelinking some 131 words/names/terms where I thought such links would help the reader. I don’t actually think I’ve madly over-linked, which rather makes your point! A few specific queries:
  • Secretary desk didn’t seem quite right for escritoire/secretaire. Is there better? -Probably not. If it doesn't have shelves above Writing desk may be better. All our furniture articles are terrible. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pietra paesina has a link on the Italian Wiki but Ruin marble was the best I could find on ours. Ideas? - Is it natural formations? Or landscape Pietra dura? These seem the closest. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, natural, so yes, ruin marble is right. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second, on your comments on the architecture of the house, you again make a fair point, although I think good use has been made of the available sources. I was surprised at the paucity of material available in the books I have. Pevsner was useful, but the Historic England listing, as an example, is oddly brief - a single, short, paragraph - for what it describes as an “important” Grade I listed building. Any other sources on the building which you can suggest would be much appreciated. I know User:Isaksenk will find your initial comments/suggestions of great help and we look forward to more. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More:
  • "is claimed by the Trust to be "a rare survival of 17th-century luxury and taste." - surely everybody agrees on this.
Johnbod This was not included as a response to a dispute, but rather a fact of which most visitors are unaware. Moreover, it's the starting point for notability and a key reason that the Trust decided to accept the property into its portfolio. If you require an alternative statement or complete removal, please provide more-precise guidance. Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think what Johnbod is saying here is that the claim Ham is a rare survival is so uncontroversial and so generally accepted that it does not need the qualifier of the Trust saying it. I've tweaked the wording which I think will work. KJP1 (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was especially "claimed" that provoked the comment, as that implies there is controversy or doubt. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "move between the courts at Richmond, Hampton, London and Windsor as his role required" - can't see the sources, but normally there is only one "court" per person. Richmond and Hampton seem to have been mostly the bases of James' sons at this time, which perhaps Vavasour needed to keep an eye on. Maybe "move between the palaces at Richmond, Hampton, London and Windsor as his court role required"
Done Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know who actually paid for the first construction? James I or Vavasour? Charlton House was built over the same years by James for Prince Henry and his tutor, though the tutor seems to have hung on to it (our article is not very clear on this).
Johnbod Rowell asserts that Vavasour was investing in the accumulation of land in the vicinity of Petersham during the early 1600s, but the source is the Tollemache family papers. He references a debate about the original motivation for the construction - some sources allege that the house was originally intended for Henry, Prince of Wales, but Rowell is skeptical. I cannot respond further without access to the BL. Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When her father died in 1655 Elizabeth became 2nd Countess of Dysart...", also the earl's coronet mentioned in the previous para. Her father being raised to the peerage has not been mentioned (rather confusingly, there are 3 possible dates for this). Maybe slip it in here, or when the coronet is mentioned.
Johnbod The earldom was conferred in 1643, but did not pass the Great Seal until 1651 according to Rowell, p. 116. After Elizabeth inherited the title, new letters patent were granted in 1670. Unfortunately Rowell does not provide a citation, so I cannot elaborate further at this time. What detail and dates are required for clarity in the section on William Murray? Isaksenk (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article does not at present say so, you need to explain that he was (or was thought be by the family) made an earl before his death - the details can be skipped here, as his bio covers them. You might also explain that as a Scottish peerage his daughter could inherit it. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 has described the original grant of the peerage, to which I have added a note on the dating. Isaksenk (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fine. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bedchamber itself was being referred to as "the Queen's Bedchamber" in 1674 which suggests that the Queen, Catherine of Braganza, a friend of Elizabeth's, had occupied it at least once." - Simon Jenkins (1,000 Best Houses", p. 495), says the visit was anticipated but "is believed never to have happened".
Johnbod I have been told by house managers that court records suggest she did visit the house, but that there is no evidence of a visit after the completion of the State Apartments. Rowell however states on page 85 that she did visit in 1674, soon after the completion, but does not provide a citation. So, without further primary source research I can't provide a more-definitive response. Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you happy with the current wording? I hope not. Can you think of an alternative one? Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one is now resolved? KJP1 (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me KJP1. I'll ask the house manager if she can get any further clarity from Rowell on his assertion. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I found Rowell's citation elsewhere, on p. 122. From the Buckminster Park Archives, he has a disbursement records for the 2 cooks working in the kitchen during the Queen's visit in 1674. So while it doesn't proved that she stayed, she apparently used the suite after its completion. KJP1 - do we want to retain Jenkins' statement? Isaksenk (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isaksenk - Have tweaked the footnote to reflect the ambiguity. That should work. Glad to be able to get back to this. Unfortunately, am in London three days next week - although not with sufficient time for a visit to Ham! - but I do think, subject to your own work commitments, we should be a position to close up the outstanding comments by the weekend. That will leave any further comments from Johnbod to be addressed. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorted, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnbod Thank you for taking the time to review the article and provide your thoughts and guidance. All feedback is a gift and yours has been extremely helpful. I'm sorry that you've found the article disappointing - we have tried our best to build on the work of previous contributors and tell the story of the property in a balanced and clear way. It's become clear to me that we're never going to be able to satisfy the requirements for FA, given the known gaps in source documentation. But your comments have helped me to realise that our team objective has already been achieved - we set out last year to expand the article to tell the story of the property in a more complete fashion, addressing the points which are most notable from a historical perspective or those which elicit the most questions from visitors. With the work already completed and the generous guidance from reviews such as Tim riley, KJP1, Kavyansh.Singh and others, we've already achieved what we set out to do. I'll now leave it to others to pursue the FA certification, if they wish. Thanks all for your generosity and support. I shall cancel this request for review as soon as I can figure out how to do so. Isaksenk (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isaksenk, think you should stick with this, after you have brought it so far. JB said "less than...expected", but is now giving clear pointers to further improve so it might become "more than...expected", and a lot are about moving paras around, or expanding emphasis here and there...ie all highly actionable and doable. And I see there is a good team helping also, so have confidence this can be brought over the line. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the article is certainly within reach of FA, & I don't believe "known gaps in source documentation" are the issue at all, but perhaps there is flagging enthusiasm. KJP1 has largely fixed the links. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Coord note -- If Isaksenk truly wishes to withdraw the article from FAC then the coords will act on that but given the reviewers' comments I agree that it would be worth sticking with it a bit longer; it is after all just over three weeks old and is, as KJP1 says, within striking distance of the bronze star. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response from isaksenk - Appreciate the feedback, but, truly - it will take many months to address the points which have been raised above, not to mention whatever may follow by other contributors. For example:
          • The question of whether Catherine of Braganza visited has long been a topic of debate. I'd need to do extensive research on primary sources to establish what can be asserted.
          • Who paid for the original construction - same as above
          • Providing a clear explanation for the origins and history of the Dysart peerage in the 17C - it's complicated, and again more research needed
          • Vavasour's role at court & relationship with James's sons, including the location of their own courts - more research
          • A request to expand the content on the exterior architecture - more research
          • Reformatting and rearranging all the references to suit the varying request of all the FAC contributors - I'm a relatively-inexperienced editor and sometimes I don't even understand what's being asked in these comments - which requires additional research on my part. Then, to try and get it to a shape that satisfies everyone - significant time investment
          • NT visitor numbers, plus current projects/programmes/etc. - I suspect that this content would require the involvement of NT HQ, which will take significant time and correspondence
          • When we began the project last summer, we also thought about moving the family section below that of the house. However one of the original editors disagreed with the approach, so we chose to compromise on that point.
        • My enthusiasm for the property and its story remains as strong as ever. (I work full time, but give up my Sundays to volunteer at the house, and have been doing so for more than a decade.) The issue is simply time. We relied heavily on Rowell and other key secondary sources to expand this article and the questions being raised now would require many days back in the BL, trawling through Rowell's cites. And since he also had access to the Tollemache family archive, some of those sources will not be available. I'd need to take time off work in order to complete this research and the earliest I'd be able to do so is January. (Work has picked up, and business travel has started again.) It's for that reason that I'm asking for the review to be cancelled. There are many other FAC reviews which would benefit from your guidance. I'm simply unable to address all the concerns raised in a meaningful way. Thanks everyone. Isaksenk (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely appreciate the challenge that juggling real life with an FAC can pose. Obviously, if Isaksenk as nominator wants to withdraw it, that is their choice. But I think it would be a real pity. Like others, I think it is close to FA standard now and all the comments/suggestions received can be actioned. I’d be pleased to try to do so, ideally in conjunction with the nominator. Currently, I have a Real Life issue of my own, as I’m writing this from Spain. While the temperature, and Alhambra views, are delightful, I am without access to any offline sources. If the coordinators are willing to keep it open to, say early November, I’d be pleased to have a go at getting it over the line. And that would give Johnbod, and others, a further opportunity for comments. Whatever the outcome, Isaksenk and their team can be justly proud of their efforts, which have greatly improved the article already. KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that, personally. Or it could be closed now & re-nominated by you after the mandatory period of 2 weeks or whatever it is. I think the amount of work required is severely overstated by User:Isaksenk above - eg I wasn't asking for "a clear explanation for the origins and history of the Dysart peerage in the 17C", merely a mention that it existed by the time of his death. I should have suggested a draft, but then I did that on the point about Vavasour's role, one that should require no further referencing, and that is also complained about as requiring "more research", which I'd deny. And so on. At the same time, I've been reviewing FACs for well over a decade, & I don't recall ever seeing one with (over a long stretch of the article) such a lack of necessary links; you can't expect that to be overlooked at FAC (not if I'm reviewing anyway). It took KJP1 about 3 hours (taking time off for a well-deserved breakfast) to fix what looks like nearly all of them, & now that appears to be sorted - I added a couple, & may well find more as I read through, which I'll probably do myself. On the family history, another way of doing it, probably the easiest starting where we are, is to keep the top half where it is, as "Builders of the house" or something, then shove the rest, from Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart on to the last Sir Lyonel, below the house description as "Later Tollemache owners" or something. Their masterly inactivity needs covering, but not so high up, if done at this length. Of course, the article has had a vast amount of work and is hugely improved, & I think it's great we got the NT volunteers involved, which I've long thought is something we ought to be doing, or get the staff involved - which I was involved with for Waddesdon Manor, an initiative rather banjaxed by Covid & staff changes. As a local, I've always found the Ham House team especially friendly & helpful, & would thank them for their efforts. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: NT visitor numbers are, I'm fairly sure, available online in the Annual Reports. 2019 is the one we want, obviously. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it took about 2 minutes to find: Ham House 2018/19: 127,195; 2017/18:118,187, page 76 here. Much harder to find what the actual period is, but it seems to be the year to 28 February, so the 2019/20 figures might not be much/at all impacted by Covid. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose While I've tried my best to address the open points raised above, it's clear that I do not understand what's needed to successfully navigate this process. I'll chalk that up to lack of skills and experience. Please accept my request to withdraw the nomination, thank you. Isaksenk (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged, Isaksenk. Pls understand it's pretty unusual to archive a FAC with supportive reviews from some experienced editors and no outright opposition to promotion. Johnbod, do I understand that your outstanding points are more than the sort of tidy-up we sometimes allow after promotion to FA? I ask because I could well have three possible courses of action here: 1) archive per the nominator's request; 2) leave open for KJP1 to work on in a week or so; 3) promote if the remaining points are considered minor and could be dealt with post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or 4) archive now & let KJP1 re-open at a moment of his choosing, as I suggested above - well I suppose that's 1). I can't really answer your question as my read-through comments so far only cover 3 of the 18 screens the article text takes on my m/c. Apart from a possible rearrangement of sections - very quick to do if agreed, and hoping more on the exterior can be sourced, they are individually pretty minor, but there may be a lot of them, I just can't tell. If it's left open I can carry on compiling them (or do that at article talk); I should be able to do that in less than a week. I'd like to hear how KJP1 feels. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback Ian Rose. I've decided to continue with the review, to ensure that the content is as accurate as possible. Please note though that I will not respond to comments offered with taunts and ridicule. Finally, as said above, it will be some time before I'll be able to conduct additional research for the purpose of expanding certain topics. Please let me know if that's acceptable. Isaksenk (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great news. There is obviously a lot of goodwill towards towards the work so far and this candidacy in the comments above. Ceoil (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great news indeed. I’m confident that it will be possible to get this one over the line. Ian Rose, Ian, we will likely need a little more time which I hope will be acceptable. I think the key outstanding issues are:

  • A few formatting/citation issues;
  • A little more on the NT’s ownership/activities/visitor numbers etc.;
  • A little more on the external architecture, if it can be squeezed from the sources. I can certainly check the Jenkins, which I’d not realised hadn’t been used;
  • Perhaps the biggest, what to do about the Dysarts? Johnbod is right, the major contribution of the later Earls, with the possible exception of the 4th, was to do very little. It is that inactivity, masterful or not!, which preserved the house and contents in their remarkably unaltered state. So, should we flip the History and the Architecture? Leave as is, perhaps combining some of the latter earls’ entries? Or, try a split - The Builders of the House - The House, contents and grounds - The later Dysarts and their successors? I’ve no particular preference, but I can understand the view that the stretch from, say, the 5th Earl to Sir Lyonel and thence to the NT, might sit better as a conclusion? That said, I tried the House before the History at Chartwell and there was a strong view at both PR and FAC that History should come first. I’m very happy to go with the nominator’s view. KJP1 (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only just seen the alarums and excursions above. I'm relieved that the nominator is going ahead, and I remain a firm supporter. Tim riley talk 13:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Continuing read through:
  • No link for Earl of Dysart - the problem raised re the grant of this not being mentioned remains. It might also be explained that it was because it was a Scottish peerage that Elizabeth inherited it in her own right.
Johnbod - hopefully, this one, and the linked one above, are now sorted. KJP1 (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorted, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another benefit of transforming the house from single to double-pile" - last bit linked to List of house types, which is resolutely American, dealing with small early types there, like Single- and double-pen architecture and Shotgun house. I don't think these terms are common dealing with English architecture, & it would be better to explain what is meant rather than using this link.
Johnbod On p. 100, Rowell states "By adding an entirely new range...a fashionable double-pile house was effectively created." I'll defer to others with deeper expertise however. Isaksenk (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. But I think the link, though it does contain the information, requires too much hunting around Colonial America for the reader, & it would be better just to slip in "two rooms deep" or similar in there. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod - Agreed. Let me work up a sentence on single/double pile and I’ll slot it in. If I could only find my Pevsner Architectural Glossary, I’d just lift a quote. KJP1 (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done - with a sentence cribbed from Curl. KJP1 (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charlotte died, childless, in 1789 and although Lionel remarried he remained without an heir.[75] When this became apparent, the families of his surviving sisters, Louisa and Jane, reverted to the family name of Tollemache in anticipation of potential succession. Lionel's second marriage in 1791 to Magdalene Lewis, the sister of his brother Wilbraham's wife, also produced no children.[73] On his death in 1799 his brother, Wilbraham became the 6th Earl of Dysart.[76]" - repetition of the childless 2nd marriage. Should be rejigged more compactly.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart - he was presumably the one who sent George III (?) away with a flea in his ear when he tried to make a touristic visit? That must be in the sources & is worth mentioning.
Done that one, by way of a footnote. It is a great quote! KJP1 (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! Maybe worth putting in the main text, as the contrast with earlier and later attitudes to visitors, royal or otherwise, is striking. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod - You could well be right. Such is my weakness for footnotes, that I sometimes bury information in them that would be better suited in the body. I shall have a go. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done - now in main body and with stronger citation. KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod, part 2[edit]

  • "He had the wall that separated [the garden of ?] Ham House from the river demolished and replaced by a ha-ha,[81] leaving the gates free-standing. [Where is this exactly? Not the "Back Gate" beyond the wilderness?] Coade stone pineapples were added to decorate the balustrades[82] [again, where are these?] and John Bacon's statue of the river god [at the front of the house], pictured here, also in Coade stone,[43] dates from this period." - needs explaining for clarity I think. If the pineapples at the front are meant, "stone pineapples were added to decorate the pillars supporting the railings at the front" or something might be better. Are we sure those ones aren't "pine cones" though? I know the form at the top resembles a pineapple better, but these are usually called pine cones in art, partly because their use in Western art long predates Colombus. So far, these changes, especially the busts, are the main new thing I've learnt from reading this article, & I think they should be moved to the architecture section. Do we have a more precise date for them? The busts on the front facade are a very striking and effective feature of the house. Though 19th-century, the sources no doubt cover their precedents from periods closer to the rest of the facade - Hampton Court Palace very close by (Card. Wolsey), but also Wollaton Hall (1580s) and Longleat (1570s), & I think this should be mentioned. Were the side walls with busts embracing the circular lawn at the front always there, or do they come from these changes?
Thanks Johnbod. The changes to the wall and gates completed by the 6th Earl were done at the north side of the property, facing the river. The 5th Earl had preferred a more-isolated home, which the 6th Earl opened to the river. Rowell refers twice to Coade stone pineapples (p. 360, 367). Regarding the busts, they are mentioned in the 1679 inventory, although the current arrangement is thought to be the work of the 6th Earl, and his redesign of the north front. The busts aren't pictured in the Hoskins miniature of 1649, but that doesn't prove they weren't there. However, the figure of Charles II certainly post-dates 1660. The flanking walls were in place before the 6th Earl's changes, but apparently some of the busts which had previously been in the front walls were relocated to the front of the house. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't exactly what the article now says.
Johnbod OK, I've tried to expand the section with details for clarification. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Trust section - do the contents (or most of them) still belong to the V&A? If so, this should be made explicit.
No, the contents were transferred in 1990, when the government relinquished the lease. The NT has sole control of the collections, but continues to collaborate with the V&A. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but this should be said clearly.
Johnbod Done. Interestingly, the final transfer notice wasn't until 12 years later. Isaksenk (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think that the later family history, from the 6th or 7th earl on, should be moved to the bottom. But the National Trust section should I think come after the earlier owners, with a quick summary referring people below for the rest of them.
Done - sort of. We can't see a way to have the NT in the first part, but the latter Dysarts in the second part. Hope that the re-ordering meets with general approval. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The north facade could be described in more detail - the doorway for example. The number of planes in the swelling forward and then backward at the sides of the facade is unusual.
Done - as far as the available sources allow. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time the remodelling project was considered impressive" - which time, which remodelling? Presumably the Duke's, but clarity needed. New para for this?
I've tweaked the text to clarify. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which were changed to black velvet upon the Duke's death in 1682" - just for the mourning period? Now back to crimson, from the photo.
The 1677 inventory referred to crimson velvet and damask wall hangings, of which these are a 19th century recreation. However the 1683 inventory, the year following the Duke's death, notes wall hangings of black velvet. The Brewer watercolour of 1886 appears to show some red textiles, but it's difficult to tell. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are lots of references not after punctuation in these sections.
Johnbod I've looked through all the references and either I don't understand what's required or someone has corrected them already. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added/changed links & done some small rewordings.
  • State Bed isn't a great link. ok - Baldachin#State_bed is needed - done
  • I know the NT says it but in " 'Le Roi vestu de noir' given to 'Monsr Morre' [Murray] by the King, 'avec sa mollure' [in this very frame]'" - "framed" or "in its frame" is surely a better translation? Maybe reword to just say the frame is thought to be original. The workshop should probably be mentioned (for the painting), as the NT does, since they probably actually painted most or all of this repeat version.
Johnbod OK, I've tried to improve accordingly. Isaksenk (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Colonel The Hon. John Russell (1620–1681)" - aka John Russell (Royalist). Other sources say he died in 1687, & the birth date is approximate. Amazingly, he seems to have no ODNB article (unlike about 20 of his "John Russell" kin). The Wright is much rarer than the other paintings & should probably be bumped up in the list. It's also probably earlier than the Lelys.
Johnbod I've moved it up (thanks for the suggestion) but the 2009 guidebook (edited by Rowell) has the dates for Russell as shown. However if there's another more-relevant source, it should be amended. Isaksenk (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this room is a very rare survival of a room in the style of Charles I's court" - yes, and it's also (as it is now) very much in a feminine taste, & in the classic lady's closet position with a view over the approach to the house, to keep an eye on comings & goings. Sources must say this.
Johnbod Well, the room itself is really her father's creation - he had the ceiling raised to accommodate Cleyn's frescos and the east-facing window enclosed to reduce light exposure. The furniture and silk damask wall-hangings reflect his daughter's taste, but the rest of the decor is his. Charles I (as I am sure you well know) was the first great art collector of the British monarchy, and therefore a room like this (of which there were similar at Whitehall and other palaces) was apparently fashionable for the men of court for showing off their own art collection. It is believed that William Murray first cultivated an appreciation for art when he went with Charles I to Spain to woo the Infanta in 1623. It's my favourite room in the house and I can go on at length, but difficult for me to judge what's appropriate for this article. Isaksenk (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his Highgate house" - first we've heard of this. Was this occupied after his marriage, do we know? Link if the London Highgate.
Johnbod Link added. The house was sold not long after Maitland married Elizabeth. Isaksenk (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Brighton book dealer, assembled a collection of books for a range of post-war country house sales" - for or "from"?
I think it is “from”, and have amended so. Isaksenk will revert if I’m wrong. KJP1 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they reflect the latest innovations from France, where royalty received important visitors in the State Bedchamber, a practice known as a levee." - though the term acquired different meanings in the Anglophone world, this was not at all what Louis XIV's levees (in fact called the lever) were - they were his daily ceremonial getting dressed, normally only attended by a large but very precisely-defined group of upper courtiers, not visitors, plus Alexandre Bontemps, Premier valet de la Chambre du Roi ("First valet of the king's bedchamber"). I'd just drop "a practice known as a levee".
Gone. KJP1 (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fashion for leather wall decoration originated in Spain and the Spanish Netherlands in the 17th century" - a bit dubious - the Freer Gallery of Art in DC has Spanish pieces apparently forming part of the stuff brought to England by Catherine of Aragon in 1509 - now incorporated in the Peacock Room. Leather wallpaper takes it back to the 9th century in Nth Africa, so "spread from" would be better than "originated".
Done. KJP1 (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, read-through completed, but I will probably have some other comments, soon. There are lots of points left above. The lead is only 3 fairly short paras long; for an article this size it should be four. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Certainly enough done for this. I think the article has great improved during the FAC process; thanks to those responding! Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Always nice to see English architecture at FAC.

  • The lead seems thin. A shortish lead is fine if it covers all major details but I don't think this does. By way of an example, the lead does not tell me what the house looks like or what architectural style it was built in. Is there a reason it was built where it was? There's no detail on the gardens. Who designed them? What do they look like? Do they follow a recognised style?
Done - we hope. Lead expanded to appropriate four-para.s and some more detail added re. garden and pleasure grounds. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, I agree with John above that we could stand to lose some of the family history where it's not directly relevant to the house.
Done - we've tried a re-ordering that places greater focus on the house, as the article subject, and moves some of the, less directly relevant, later owners, to the end. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the history contains quite a lot architecture terminology and architectural details about the house, might it be best to re-order the article so that the "architecture" section comes before the history, but after a section about the house's origins?
Done - hopefully in a way that gains support. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elizabeth is thought to have become acquainted thought by whom? A statement like that needs attribution, and we try to avoid the passive voice anyway.
HJ Mitchell I've attempted to remove the passive voice, but I can't add anything other than the references already there. If it's still objectionable, then I propose removal of the entire sentence. Please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repairs however did not begin until the 1740s "however" is a word to avoid because it's arguably editorialising (which is a no-no on Wikipedia).
HJ Mitchell Text amended. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the front of the house the "Advance", a projecting frontispiece is "Advance" a proper noun?
HJ Mitchell The period documents treat it as a proper noun, which Rowell continues in his text. If it needs to be changed, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 4th Earl had kept his son short of money during his lifetime, causing friction in the relationship; he married without his father's consent.[74] His wife, Charlotte, was the youngest illegitimate daughter of Sir Edward Walpole, second son of Robert Walpole, and niece of Horace Walpole who lived near to Ham across the Thames at Strawberry Hill.[74] As an example of what I mean above about family history details not directly relevant to the house: what does this have to do with the house itself?
HJ Mitchell Well, visitors often ask about the connection with Walpole and Strawberry Hill. Moreover, it's strange that the 4th Earl spent an absolute fortune on the estate, yet kept his son short of funds. But if you require it to be deleted, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lees-Milne saw the melancholy state of the house and grounds but, even though devoid of its contents, the splendour of the underlying estate was immediately apparent You can't use terms like "melancholy" and "splendour" in Wikipedia's voice; that's editorialising. What you can do is attribute them to the person whose opinions they are.
HJ Mitchell Text amended. If still objectionable, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir Lyonel and his son donated the house and its grounds to the Trust Did the NT have to persuade them or did they give it up readily?
HJ Mitchell I've mentioned the fact that a lengthy negotiation was required. Isaksenk (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with John that the architecture section lacks detail. We get a brief description of the house's exterior, followed by some appreciation, and then it ends. I'd suggest looking at some of the castles and other old buildings on WP:FA to see how the architecture and history is balanced there.
  • in "the English Gothic and Tudor tradition" who are you quoting? It needs inline attribution (or just remove the quote marks if it'll stand on its own as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice).
HJ Mitchell It's a direct lift from Cherry and Pevsner - please advise how this should be amended, or whether to remove entirely.Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be removed. It's a useful bit of information and it's well sourced. The problem is that the quote isn't attributed (ie you don't say who you're quoting). You can fix this by removing the quote marks and making it a statement in Wikipedia's voice, seeing as it's short and factual, or you tell the reader who you're quoting, eg "According to architectural historians Bridget Cherry and Nikolaus Pevsner...". It's up to you which way you go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Isaksenk (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Great Staircase, described by the historian is "Great Staircase" a proper noun?
HJ Mitchell Rowell refers to it repeatedly as such. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reference after the last sentence of "Round Gallery" or "North Drawing Room" and several more as we go down.
HJ Mitchell Is every paragraph required to conclude with a reference? I can see some which need additional referencing (like the Round Gallery, which I will sort out) but others, such as the first paragraph of the Queen's Bedchamber are simply a description of the actual room. Do we need to provide a reference for those as well, for something we observe directly on a regular basis? Isaksenk (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done now, I think. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that there should be more to be said about the gardens and grounds. Are there any particular plants or flowers that are used? What's so significant about them that they're listed? Perhaps quote Historic England's appraisal if it contains any good details. What can be said about the buildings and structures in the gardens or that used to be part of the grounds? For example, you have a photo of Petersham Road Lodge but it's not mentioned in the prose.
Done - I hope. A little more added as an introduction to the garden and pleasure grounds, and Isaksenk has added quite a lot more detail on the structures etc. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Access" section doesn't strike me as encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It should be sufficient to tell the reader where it is (and we include maps and coordinates as well).
HJ Mitchell It was in the original article, so we've left it in place. If it needs to be removed, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm ok with these - such sections are common or normal in (near) country house articles. It is also typical of Wikiways that although the infobox gives the exact coordinates in case people want to arrive by parachute, or target the house with a ballistic missile, we don't give the postcode so you can set your satnav. Mind you, the coordinates might be useful if arriving by boat, but then there's no information as to moorings. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns about comprehensiveness in places and excess detail in others but that's not impossible to address if you have the source material to hand. The rest of my concerns should be fairly trivial to address. This is very impressive for a first attempt at FA, and the prose is excellent. It's not often I find so little to copy-edit in such a substantial article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update - as indicated below, we've tried a re-ordering, a lead expansion, and some more of the garden and grounds. Hoping that these meet the need. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod - Harry and Johnbod - Isaksenk and I are working through your comments - for which many thanks. As you say, I think many/most can be relatively easily dealt with and we shall push on with these. Three more major issues:

  • The lead - we have looked to expand this, it just needs a little more work;
  • The article's structure - having considered your comments, and after discussion, we have tried an alternative structure for the article, in short, The builders / The house / The later owners. This puts the focus of the article more squarely on the house, and we hope it meets with approval;
  • The architecture - we have literally scrapped every source currently available to us, to provide as comprehensive a description as possible of the house's external appearance and structure. It is revealing that the Historic England listing is one paragraph long, and that the Pevsner entry devotes twice as much space to the interior and contents as it does to the exterior. We think this reflects the relative importance of the exterior, as opposed to the interior, the furnishings and the contents, which is itself reflected in the coverage. We hope you'll agree that the coverage of the interior and the contents is very comprehensive indeed. We'll continue to look, and any further suggestions would be much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I believe my comments have been adequately addressed—excellent work! The article exemplifies Wikipedia's best work on the topic of country houses. I still don't feel the access section is encyclopaedic, especially as it's only sourced to the NT website, but I'm not going to oppose over it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update and summary - KJP1[edit]

To attempt a summary:

  • Supports - 3
  • Image review - Passed
  • Source review - Passed. Ian Rose - I think, as a first-time nominator, Isaksenk will need a sample check on the sources. I'll happily undertake this, indeed I arguably already have, as I reviewed many of the on-line and off-line sources, and they check out. However, I may be thought too closely involved.
  • Comments, for which many thanks again - We have sought either to action all comments, e.g. re-ordering the article, or to respond to them where the sources available to us don't allow us to do more, e.g. more discussion of the building's external architecture. We hope that the reviewers are satisfied with the responses. If there are any areas where further work is required, it would be really helpful if these could be flagged. KJP1 (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KJP1 I wouldn't say that you are too involved to do the spot check. Please let me know if you intend to do so or I can list it at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe - that’s great, then I’ll do that. Johnbod/HJ Mitchell - Johnbod/Harry, it would be good to get your feedback on the changes made. KJP1 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm now supporting, above, thanks fo all your efforts. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of sources[edit]

Further to the Source Review, I have done a spot check of sources as it is the nominator’s first time at FAC. This was actually less burdensome than it might be, despite the impressive range and number of references, as I reviewed the article at Peer Review, and at GA, am familiar with many of the sources, and have access to a considerable number of the off-line ones. I have spot-checked a range of both the on and off-line sources and am fully satisfied they check out appropriately, directly supporting the text. I changed one, and added another, in relation to Kingwood, as it no longer worked, and wasn’t that strong a source. For disclosure, this was actually one I had earlier added myself. KJP1 (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't thank you enough KJP1 for your support and contributions! Isaksenk (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 Thanks for carrying out the spot check but is it possible to give more details about which sources/references you checked?
Also I noticed that the reference Wilson 1979 is broken in two places. (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe - Many thanks. I think the two Wilsons are fixed. My error, 9 instead of 7 in the dates. But just for clarity, I wasn’t doing a source review, as User:Iazyges has already done that. As to more details on the spot checking, I’m not quite sure what is needed. When I did my first source spot check, I listed every one I’d checked. User:Brianboulton helpfully advised that this wasn’t necessary and that I only needed to flag those with issues. If I can remember which one it was, I’ll diff it. I appreciate that this was a few years ago and, if the approach has changed, I can certainly list every one I’ve looked at. But I’m not entirely sure what purpose that would serve? KJP1 (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in my spot checks I say something like "Checked refs 3, 7, 11 and 21 in this version and found no issues" or "Checked all references to sources X, Y and Z, found no issues". I think this is worth stating, because 1) it could be that someone else checks a different set of refs and find issues; 2) it makes it clear how much spot checking was done; 3) if you do find issues than it's clear what the scale of the problem is (i.e. do the sources fail verification in 1/10 refs or 1/2 refs) (t · c) buidhe 22:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, Ian Rose - Buidhe, I appreciate that might be your preferred approach, but I’m not sure it is the required approach? If it is, I can and will do it. But it will slow down finalisation of this candidacy, as I have a full working week ahead, and I personally remain unconvinced as to its necessity. Can the coordinators let me know how they would like me to proceed. KJP1 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case specifically I was thinking that spot checks are reproducible so it does not matter so much who does them. But if you don't state what you checked then it's not reproducible. (t · c) buidhe 22:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe - apologies, I understand your logic in this case and will detail the checks I did. It will take a little longer, I’m afraid, as I’ve not got much spare time this week. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off-line sources spot-checked (with references)
  • Beard - 1/180
  • Pevsner - 3/48/103/160
  • Norwich - 4
  • Curl - 8/56
  • Summerson - 9
  • Jackson-Stops - 13/32/109/231
  • Airs - 16
  • NT Guide- 17/26/30/77/78/98/137/145/197/199/246
  • Fraser - 45
  • Binney - 46
  • Wilson - 64
  • Greeves - 70
  • Girouard - 142
  • Musson - 163
  • Lees-Milne - 249/254
On-line references spot-checked
  • 2/7/22/24/39/75/79-89/92-96/106/107/110/120/121/123/124/126-129/130/132/133/140/141/178/181/191/193/195/213/264-268/271-284
Major off-line sources not spot-checked due to inaccessibility
  • Prichard
  • Rowell
  • Thornton & Tomlin
I regret not being able to check the above, and not being the owner of the Rowell, which looks splendid! But I am satisfied, on the basis of the spot-checking which I have been able to undertake, that the references check out. My sincere apologies for the further delay this has caused. I hope the coordinators are now in a position to make a call on this FAC. I would like to join User:Isaksenk in thanking all those who have contributed. The article has certainly been improved through the process. KJP1 (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ham_House/archive1&oldid=1057669979"