Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bruce Castle/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 14:55, 5 May 2009 [1].

---

Bruce Castle

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 16:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Bruce Castle/archive1

Part of the putative Buildings of the Moselle valley topic, those with long memories may remember my saying that an earlier version of this article was unexpandable, but, well, it's been expanded. The article may appear vague on the early history not through lack of research, but because little is known about the origins of the two buildings (the house and the detached tower) that make up Bruce Castle and the early records are lost – even the usually authoritative Pevsner is unsure of the century of construction, let alone the specifics – but I think the article does as good a job as possible of covering what little we do know of the early period, and in covering the building's history since then. It's been through an extremely thorough GA review, as well as a peer review last month which fizzled out somewhat. Mostly by me based on an earlier stub article by JackyR, with significant nods due to Giano on the architectural history and Malleus for general cleanuppification. – iridescent 16:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

NB. Per this conversation, although www.revolutionaryplayers.org.uk looks like a poorly-constructed fansite, it's actually an impeccable Reliable Source, being a joint venture of a number of major research institutions (The National Gallery, Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, Erasmus Darwin House etc) to centralize their biographical material on the 17th and 18th centuries – the peculiar name refers to the industrial revolution. – iridescent 16:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That page looks like a dead link to me :-) Majorly talk 16:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, might have helped if I'd put the right URL in – now fixed. – iridescent 16:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

images all licenced correctly, File:Rowland_Hill_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_13103.jpg should look into the text Fasach Nua (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

• 0 disambiguation links were found with the dab finder tool.
• 0 dead external links were found with the links checker tool.
• 0 ref formatting errors were found with WP:REFTOOLS.--Truco 02:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments On the whole, very good, but a few problems need fixing and matters need reconciling.

Problems

1. The first sentence is much too long. It attempts to state 7 facts about the house. You can afford to use a short paragraph to do this.

The Grade 1 listing is almost certainly linked not to the house’s present architectural state, which is not particularly impressive, but to its archaeological significance as the earliest-surviving brick house. These facts ought to be linked.

I agree regarding the first sentence and have split it. Regarding the reasons for listing, as I've already said on the talkpage, Wikipedia is not the place for your pet theories with no evidence. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that being brick-built had any impact on the decision to list the building; virtually every surviving Tudor building in London is Grade 1 listed, and the register entry gives no indication that the construction material was a factor in the decision. – iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that the apparent fact that the house is possibly the oldest brick house is not mentioned in the statement of significance? That sounds like an oversight!

I gave a link to the listing in my reply above (IoE looks like a fansite, but it's actually English Heritage's central register of listed buildings). No, it is not mentioned, and I very much doubt it's relevant; any surviving building from this period in London would be Grade 1 listed regardless of building material (as per its near-neighbour, Forty Hall, also brick-built – the third surviving manor house in N London, Broomfield House, is only grade II* listed as only a shell remains). – iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Repeatedly remodelled in the 17th and 18th centuries. This is not well expressed.

I would suggest that the remodelling of the 17th century was not repeated. The major and repeated remodelling and extending was 18th. If Pevsner is correct about the courtyard, and he may well be, then a substantial part of the house must have been demolished and rebuilt to a different plan.

I've taken out the "repeated", which I agree was confusing, but there's no suggestion whatsoever that the house was extended in the 18th century; it was remodelled in the late 17th century, and extended in both the 18th and 19th century, but "extension" is a misleading word to use in the context of the renovations; while some of the renovations added additional rooms, others such as the demolition of the west wing and the removal of the attics reduced the overall size of the house. "Remodelled" is a word that encompasses both types of alteration. – iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You've written here something here that is perhaps not exactly what you intended. You say "there's no suggestion whatsoever that the house was extnded in the 18th century" and then say exactly the opposite- "extended both in the 18th and 19th centuries". Did you mean to write "there's no suggestion whatsoever that the house was extnded in the 18th century"?

Oops, my mistake – it should have read primarily extended in the 18th century. Are you happy with the current wording? – iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happpy to go with the removal of the word repeated.

My comment about "demolition" is not something that I intended for inclusion. I merely have an academic interest in the suggestion that it was a courtyard house.

3. There was no castle in the area at the time however, and the family is unlikely to have lived locally.

This sentence implies that there was a castle at a later date, and that this building actually is as castle. That implication is one of a couple that imply that the building was or is a castle. Neither is true.

Whether or not there was a castle is not directly linked to whether the Bruce family lived locally.

I'm sorry, this is a ridiculous objection. The sentence does not imply anything of the sort. It's clear from the context that it's to make clear that while the name "Bruce Castle" was later used to describe the house, the Bruce family did not live in a castle on this site and are unlikely to have lived in the area at all. – iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no castle at that time however implies that there was a castle at some other time, presumably the "Bruce Castle" which is the subject of the article. In fact (as far as we know) there never was a castle.

Are you happy with "However, there was no castle in the area, and the family is unlikely to have lived locally"? That should be clearer. – iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

4. To say that Lysons dates the use of the name to the 13th century is inaccurate. Lysons dates the use of the name Brus to the 13th century, and “supposes” that this gave rise to the name “Brus Castle”.

The Lysons quote in question is "The portion allotted to Robert de Brus (who was competitor for the crown of Scotland with Baliol) was called the Manor of Bruses, by which name it is still distinguished. Richard de Brus, a younger son of Robert, who held this manor for life by grant from his father, died seised of it, anno 1287 (fn. 23) . His father survived him, and died in 1295 (fn. 24) . Robert Earl of Annandale, and in right of his wife Earl of Carrick (eldest son of Robert de Brus above-mentioned), after his return from the holy war retired to England (fn. 25) , and it is probable made Tottenham his residence, whence the mansion-house belonging to this manor obtained, I suppose, the name of Brus, or Bruce Castle." To me, it's clear that he's attributing the use of the name "Brus or Bruce Castle" to this period. Lysons was published over 200 years ago, and to the best of my knowledge no reliable source since makes this claim; all concur that the first usage of the "Bruce Castle" name dates from the 2nd Baron Coleraine (1635-1708). I've mentioned Lysons, to show that the debate did exist, but am not treating him as a reliable source. – iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Lysons says "I suppose". Your dealing with this should state that Lysons "supposes" this, rather than although Lysons dates the usage of the name to the late 13th century. The current reading indicates that Lysons is definite which gives a sense of reliability. The word "supposes" must be inserted, otherwise the statement is misleading.

How about "although Lysons speculates that the usage of the name dates to the late 13th century"? – iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

5. The linking of the simple neo-Gothic window frame inserted in a Gothic window in the tower with “Strawberry Hill Gothic” and taking it to imply that the interior was changed in the 18th, rather than the 19th century (as would be expected) is problematic, unless the interior treatment is much more suggestive of Strawberry Hill.

Agreed; that was a piece of speculation by Giano, and while (being from Giano) it's likely correct, I've removed it as uncited; English Heritage believe that the window dates from the 19th century. – iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

6. …….little evidence of its early antecedents, appearing more an 17th-century manor house than a castle.

This is a very misleading sentence. It continues to imply that the house once was or at the very least looked like a castle. The first is not true and the second is probably not true.

The second part of the sentence states that it appears like a 17th century manor house.

No, it no longer does appear like a 17th century manor house, despite the fact that it has retained its distinctive 17th century central feature. Other than this, the building has been remodelled to look 18th century. Even the bays have been given an 18th century appearance by the sash windows.

Agreed; this was misleading, as even if one does believe that the sourth elevation has a 17th century appearance, that certainly isn't the case of the Georgian east, Queen Anne north, or Victorian/Art Deco melange to the west. Removed. – iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

7. The house was substantially remodelled in 1684, following Henry Hare's marriage to the dowager Duchess of Somerset, and much of the existing south facade dates from this time. ref. Cherry and Pevsner.

This statement, and the dating of the engraving to “following Hare’s alterations’’ are in serious conflict with each other.

The engraved picture shows the south façade (put me right if I am wrong.) … and is based on a painting (which might or might not be considerably earlier?)

Most of the details of the house in the picture are not consistent with a date of post 1684, but are entirely consistent with a late Tudor date. The form of gables is Tudor, the transoms of the windows are Tudor. The different heights of the windows in the right turret suggesting that it was a stair turret is Tudor. None of these things are consistent with a building period of post 1684. Only the central feature and the parapets/ finials of the turrets are apparently of a later date. And these features occur in buildings of the first half of the 17th century, rather than the second. Hence the fact that further down the page you cite the similarity to buildings of 1611 and 1616, not buildings of 1684.

The implications are either that the painting on which the engraving was based represents the building prior to all Hare’s alterations, (which means that the caption is incorrect) or else the implications of Cherry and Pevsner have been misinterpretted in the article, or (Heaven help us if it could be so) Uncle Nick got it wrong. Please check exactly what the Cherry Pevsner reference says.

Hare's alterations were made in 1684; the engraving is based on a painting of 1686. These are two of the very few dates in the house's vague early history which aren't up for debate; both the records of the reconstruction, and the date on the painting, can be verified from primary sources. – iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The big question is, at this stage, do we have any idea of what parts of the reconstruction were actually done by Hare, given the fairly extensive nature of the changes that took place in the 18th century.

If Hare, commencing in 1684, inserted those windows shown in both engravings, then they were very dated in style. If Hare built the bays/turrets, then they were also very dated. If Hare was responsible the gables, then those were also very dated. Even the style of the central feature had been around for seventy years. (on evidence which you or Giano has included in the article.) Is there any evidence of exactly which changes Hare made to the house? Did Hare's changes to the south front consist of laying out a garden to please his wife? What did he actually do?

The recorded changes made by Hare in the 1684 remodelling (I really don't want to go into detail in the article itself if it can be avoided, as they're irrelevant for most readers) – Pevsner's wording, but Pegram's summary of the changes is similar: "The central porch was given lively stone quoins, two orders of pilasters, and a balustraded top, and surounted by a tower and little cupola, and the polygonal end bays were heightened". As these are the two most reliable sources for the architecture – and there's no source saying anything to the contrary – I will stand by the current deliberately vague wording of "and much of the existing south facade dates from this time" as being consistent with the (sketchy) detail available from the sources. – iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

8. The engraving, regardless of the date of the painting on which it is based, is the most important indication of a major stage of the building’s development. It is a very detailed pic and needs to be much larger than thumbnail.

So click on it. While there are circumstances where it's legitimate to violate WP:MOSIMAGE for the sake of clarity, this is certainly not one of them. – iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Read it more closely. The max recommended size is 300 for very detailed pics. No reader wants to be hopping backwards and forwards to see images. And most casual readers are unaware that they can chose a size in which to view images. We write for the public. Or don't we?

Sorry, but I really don't believe that the detail of that particular image is essential enough to warrant invoking the "Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article" exemption from the MOS. It's no more significant – in some ways less so – then the photographs of the four current faces of the house. – iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

9. ...gabled attics on the south front were removed, giving the south facade the appearance it has today.

This is not an accurate description of the particular architectural event. The attics were not removed. They are very much in evidence. The attic storey was rebuilt to the height of the gables, and given a straight parapet. Count the number of stories.

Changed "removed" to "replaced by a top floor and parapet", which describes this particular rebuilding more accurately. – iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good.

10. In the lower section of the article the pictures are cluttered and badly arranged. There is Rowland Hill facing out of the pic on the left, and the new extension facing out of the pic on the right.

The cramming of too many pics causes squeezing of the text. This problem doesn’t matter much on wide screens (where it is most likely to occur). However some editors are very strongly opposed to it. If the text is being “squeezed” on a very narrow screen, (which makes the text extend further and therefore the problem less likely to occur, but more problematic if it does) which is happening in this case, then it definitely needs fixing. I suggest the removal of the lest significant picture.

Agree regarding Hill facing out, and I've swapped two images over to resolve that one. I completely disagree with you regarding clutter; there's no image in this section (with the arguable exception of Hill's portrait and the detail of the entranceway) which isn't necessary, and this page displays fine on everything from a 25" widescreen to an iPod. – iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See wiki style, which you have quoted elsewhere, on the subject of squeezing text between images.

The current placement of images isn't violating the "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other" line of the MOS, which I assume you're citing – if any parts of this article are violating MOS, you can rest assured Sandy will shout at us. It's been tested on various browsers at various window widths, and I'm unable to find any combination in which the current image placement causes either image-stacking or "toothpaste tube" squeezing of the text, which is what that particular clause of the MOS is intended to avoid. – iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Two issues

• Fortification. The “fortification” of a manor house was not necessarily strategic. It could be purely cosmetic. The façade of Leeds Castle [2] is a splendid example of a structure that is purely domestic but has been given corner turrets and battlements, in this case very much in keeping with its real status as a castle and the home of royalty.

In the case of Bruce Castle, the two octagonal turrets, on the evidence of the engraving, were not “bays” in the normal sense of an open space jutting from a room. Their windows are indicative of this, particularly those of that on the right.

These turret gave a castle-ish air to the building, and justified the affectation of it being called a castle, as did the tower, to the left. It is plain that the turrets were not strategic. However, like the addition of battlements to a roofline, or a moat, six feet wide and two feet deep, they constitute “fortification”.

Here’s a good example: the present Chilham Castle justifies its name of “castle” with “fortification” of battlements and corner towers. They are neither serves any practical defensive purpose, but both are “fortification”. [3]

• • We have already had this conversation on the article talk page. There is no evidence whatsoever for any fortification – cosmetic or otherwise. The name "Bruce Castle" was a late change postdating the alleged "fortifications" by at least a century; the change in name was almost certainly due to the fashion for all things Scottish following the Union of 1603. If you can find any reliable source for fortifications other than your own personal theory, feel free; otherwise, the name has no more significance than nearby Jack Straw's Castle.

You are (I feel) deliberately misinterpreting my statements about "fortification". By the 16th century, and certainly by the 17th, few houses were being strategically fortified. However, houses were being "castellated" (a better word) by adding Castle-ish features. Two octagonal turrets and a ditch served to make the house somewhat "castle-ish". Crenellations (not here) were often added to rooflines.

I doubt very much whether a manor house without some feature that was regarded as fashionably castle-ish in style would have renamed Brus Castle. Turrets and/or crenellations were a common feature of such buildings. In this case, there were two turrets, nad an ancient tower to support the renaming, whether or not one terms the ditch that obviously existed to the left of the building, a "moat".

• The moat. What constitutes a moat? And what is the archaeological evidence for somethin akin to a moat having existed at Bruce Castle?

Once again, like “fortification” the word does necessarily imply a truly defensive encircling moat.

The undeniable fact, proved by the archaeologist, is that the ground level on the left side (facing) of the house in the vicinity of the old tower was very much lower than it is at the time of the tower’s construction. There are cross-shaped windows which are now below ground level.

The engraving supports this. The linear perspective of the engraving is fairly accurate. It indicates clearly that the land fell away very steeply directly beside the main part of the house, and the left wall of the garden in front of the house. The ground level across the façade is clearly indicated, but suddenly disappears in front of the little extension to the left. Likewise, the tower is standing in a deep space. If the ground was level, or sloped gently, then the line of the ground level would appear on the tower, at the angle at which the view has been taken.

So the tower stood on much lower ground, or in a wide ditch, that extended back for some distance, along the side of the house.

At the rear of the house, archaeologists discovered a brick culvert of the 17th or 18th century (memory lapse). A culvert covers a ditch, drain or water course. It would be interesting to know the size of this culvert.

See above. The evidence for a moat is the single line "The spread of London's population is responsible for the recent levelling of the moat" in a 1911 magazine, and a passing mention to "the repair of a drawbridge" in 1742; the evidence against a moat is the fact that it doesn't appear on two centuries of Ordnance Survey maps, is not mentioned in any source, does not appear in any images from any period, has left no archaeological traces, and that there would be no reason for a house built in this area in this period to have a moat. The windows below ground level on the round tower are an effect of stratification with no necessary implications that it was built at a lower level – assuming it was built as a dovecote there would be no reason to build a dovecote in the moat, in any case. As per what you've been repeatedly advised, if you can find reliable sources for the building being moated feel free to include them, but Wikipedia is not the place for your original research. – iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So we ignore the report that a "moat" was levelled. (Call it a wide ditch if you like). We ignore a report that gives "passing mention" to the repair of a drawbridge? We ignore the fact that "stratification" has occurred to a singular degree around the tower, but not to the house right beside it? We ignore the fact that two engravings (and presumably the painting on which they are based) show that the base of the tower was at a very much lower level than the house and garden.

The mention of a drawbridge is just that – a mention of a drawbridge – with no mention of a moat. I am starting to get fed up with repeating this; you can say (as the article does), that the existence of a drawbridge implies the existence of a moat at this time. We are not going to include original research and speculations to come to a firm conclusion on whether the building was or was not moated, in the absence of sources. – iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever said that there was a "reason" for the house to have a moat? You keep misinterpreting my statements as if I was referring to something as wide as the English Channel and as deep as the Mindanao Trench. I have made it fairly clear that I am not.

Concerning the ordinance surveys- How detailed are they? While they undoubtedly show watercourses, do they show ditches?

Yes, OS maps should show ditches (they're most obvious with railway cuttings). Even were it to slip past on early maps, it should certainly show on later maps; there's no sign of any earthworks on, for example, the 1895 map (Enfield S, OS ref M7.07). I'm willing to be give the matter of a moat (whether defensive or ornamental) more weight if someone can find a map or picture showing a moat – or a reliable source mentioning the moat – but a single passing mention in an article on another subject, which is all we currently have, is not sufficient grounds to warrant mentioning anything more than the possibility, as the article currently does. – iridescent 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• OR warning! This is a suggestion which the interested parties might like to consider. The presence of "windows" towards the base of the tower and lack of such windows higher up suggest that the building's purpose was something that required an updraft.

So find a reliable source. Again, we don't do speculation. – iridescent 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is added, as I have made obvious, for your interest.

Style: Some comparative pics.

• Melford Hall, 1554-78 has twin brick turrets [4]
• Eastbury Manor House, Elizabethan, has the gables and windows [5]
• Cadhay, before 1550, with Elizabethan and Jacobean additions. Note the polygonal central feature. [6]

Amandajm (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the changes that you have made. They are a real improvement. You have addressed the real issues, as against those which would require a major funded dig or detailed investigation of the building's fabric to sort out. If the statement by Lysons is turned into a "supposition" by Lysons, then I think it's probably fine. I'll take another look.

Amandajm (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Further comments

• There was no castle in the area at the time however, and the family is unlikely to have lived locally.

The words "at that time" imply that there was a castle at a later date. There was not. They need to go. Bruce Castle was not and is not a castle. While there may be a British custom of naming a building "castle", the use of the word "castle" on its own carries the implication of a real castle. It needs to be changed.

The "at the time" has already gone – see above. – iridescent 01:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Although there is or surviving historical record of its construction, and it does not appear in any illustrations, court rolls of 1742 refer to the repair of a drawbridge, implying that the building then had a moat.[5] A 1911 archaeological journal made passing reference to "the recent levelling of the moat".[Jean Pegram 1987]

I want to know if this entire sentence comes from Jean Pegram, 1987. The document comes from the Journal of a local historical society, the website of which is very brief. The document doesn't appear to be on line.

Does all the information in this sentence come from Pegram?

The sentence from Pegram is "In the Tottenham Court Rolls there is a reference to the repair of a drawbridge at the Lordship House in 1742 implying that a moat was in existence at this time", which is what I've tried to convey. – iridescent 01:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I presume that Pegram is the source for both dated facts, of 1742 and 1911. Does the statement that there is no archaeological evidence and the statement that it does not appear in any illustrations also come from Pegram?

I don't know why you're presuming that – the 1911 source (["Ancient Earthworks" in A History of the County of Middlesex) is clearly cited. I'll concede the " I agree on the "no archaeological evidence or surviving historical record of its construction, and it does not appear in any illustrations" shouldn't be there, and have removed it. – iridescent 01:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My error entirely. The other refence is there. But this was not the matter that I was really wanting to know. Amandajm (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Pegram was writing in 1987. If Pegram wrote that there was "no archaeological evidence", then she wrote it twenty years before a dig discovered windows in the tower below current ground level, (and well below the entrance to the house itself which hasn't changed by more than a few inches since the engraving.) She would also have been unaware of the underground brick culvert at the rear of the house. (I want to point out here that although members of the public were employed in the dig, there is no reason to presume that it was carried out in anything other than a professional manner. The relevant material here is of large size and was not going to go unnoticed, regardless of who manned the trowel. Professional digs have often employed local unskilled labour.)

See above – that "no archaeological evidence" has gone. – iridescent 01:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The statement it does not appear in any illustration is incorrect, regardless of whether Pegram made the statement, or it is original research on the part of the writers of the article. I have made it clear that both the engraved versions of the painting of the late 17th century indicate, by their perspective, that the base of the tower was at a much lower level than the ground level of the forecourt. This may not be apparent to you, but to someone who has educated others in the skill of perspective drawing, it is a fact beyond dispute.

I want to point out to you that the western boundary wall, dating from the 17th century (or earlier) runs parallel to the school building, (and parallel to the demolished west wing). The wall, for no currently apparent reason, then makes a right hand turn and meets the house, parallel and adjacent to the south front. The engravings both show that previously there was a continuation of that masonry wall, having made another right hand turn, on the left side of the forecourt, separating the forecourt from whatever lay to the left of it. The right hand side of the forcourt only has a picket fence. Why the large dog's leg kink in the fence? Why did the boundary fence not encompass the feature of the round tower? The reason is made clear in the two engravings. The round tower was standing in a deep ditch (otherwise referred to as "moat"). When that forecourt was built, the level area was walled and fenced as a garden. The ditch (moat) was not included.

Let me reiterate, the statement that I am making that the tower was at a lower level is not "OR". It has been plainly illustrated twice. Any editor, looking at the engraving, could state with certainty that (at that date) "the house had gables" or "the house had a forecourt", (both of which are plain to anyone). An editor whose observation is a little more scientific will state with equal certainty that "the house had a round tower at a lower level". (This is the same editor that drew to your attention the fact that an attic storey was still present, although transformed, and suggested that you should count the levels.)

Leading out of the forecourt, apparent in both engravings, is an arch or doorway through the wall, near the house. The tower has a projecting masonry structure pointing in a roughly north easterly direction, which would align (approximately) with that door, were the door still present.

I am not going to keep repeating myself on this. As already discussed on the article talkpage, you are basing this on this illustration, in which you can see a ditch but nobody else appears able to. If you can find a published source for there being a moat or ditch by all means add it, but the only written evidence is the 1742 mention of a drawbridge and a passing mention in a 1911 article on another subject, and that is not sufficient evidence for anything stronger than the "implying that at this time the building had a moat" currently used in the article. There are any number of reasons a wall could make a sharp bend – to accommodate a stable yard, to avoid crossing onto the lands of the nearby church, to avoid a boggy patch of the Moselle floodplain – in the absence of stronger evidence, we are not going to rewrite the article to state that a moat definitively existed. – iridescent 01:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• What I am seeing is not, precisely, the presence of a ditch. What I am seeing, in both engravings, is that if the ground level were at the same height around the tower and in front of the now-demolished wing, then it would be clearly visible and would have been drawn by the engraver. The ground level is not visible. In fact, it is not visible for some feet. This indicates that the ground around the tower and in front of the western wing, (immediately adjacent to the south front) was several feet lower than the courtyard. The two ground levels are separated by a wall (in the engraving).

The land that is being avoided is not church land, because it has the Bruce tower standing on it. The land avoided by the wall was very probably "a boggy patch" as you have suggested, because it was at a lower level.

I took a look at the 1896(?) survey map, and it had a big capital T for "Tower" just where one might hope to see indication of a steep change in level. I think that there is a more detailed map than the one I viewed online, but I couldn't access it. Anyway, the map is 300 years later than the engraving and the level of soil would have changed in that time, perhaps by several feet. If this occured it would leave not very much levelling to do, at the time that the "levelling" was recorded in 1911. However, at that date, the dip might still have been substantial enough to indicate that what one might term a "moat" had once been there. This latter is speculation on one hand, but on the other, it is to be expected that the ground level would change, particulalrly once the wall between the two levels was gone. (maybe it fell down into the ditch)

• The two statements there is no archaeological evidence and it does not appear in any illustrations should both be removed. A statement such as "the ground around the house is (now) level" or even "although it is not (now) apparent" could be inserted instead.

Amandajm (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Pleased to see they are gone.

Are you happy with the current status of the article regarding the "moat/ditch" issue, which seems to be the only item left unresolved? As per the current wording, I'm perfectly willing to concede that there may have been a moat, but that there's insufficient evidence to state it as fact – which is the current wording used.

Incidentally, replying to an earlier point of yours I forgot to reply to earlier – although the "Hornsey Historical Society" sounds like a club, it's in fact one of the main publishers and shops on historic material on the London N area (which is why they're publishing an item on Bruce Castle, which is nowhere near Hornsey). The current edition of Pegram is now actually published and distributed by Bruce Castle Museum themselves, so I think it's reasonable to assume that it's reliable. – iridescent 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
• What makes http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/ccmiddle.htm a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the citations (I could have sworn I already did that, but hey ho). Regarding the Middlesex Regiment, I agree it's not the best of sources but can't see a way round it. It's certainly possible to cite the fact that the collection has now been moved to the National Army Museum, and there are numerous sources for it formerly being at Bruce Castle – but no obvious reliable source I can find for the date of the transfer. (Pegram was published before the transfer took place, and the council minutes don't appear to be online.) Do you (or anyone) have any suggestions on how to treat this? (I can certainly reword it to "the collection was later moved" or something similar, leaving out the date"). – iridescent 16:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with the "collection was later moved" and stick with reliable sources for the information. You can always add the date if you find the council minutes or something else reliable later. I don't see the exact date of the move as being something needed for this article, it might be required for comprehensiveness on an article about the collection, but for this article, the fact that it moved is enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done – before you ask, www.armymuseums.org.uk is a reliable source ("This website is approved by the Ministry of Defence as the definitive guide to the regimental and corps museums of the British Army spread throughout the United Kingdom.") – iridescent 17:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose As this article is about the house, I think there should be sections on its architecture and its history. Instead, the story of the house is told through its owners and bits of architectural history are scattered throughout the biographies of the owners. I would reorganize the article to focus on the history of the house, rather than the owners. I would also recommend a copyedit from an uninvolved editor. I would be happy to continue copyediting myself, after this larger organizational issue has been addressed. Awadewit (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As originally written, the article was formatted the way you're suggesting (with an "architectural history", followed by a separate "history of the house's residents"). Following this discussion – in which I initially took the same position you suggest, but changed my mind – it was restructured into the "straight chronological narrative" form it currently has. I think it makes more sense doing it this way. It avoids the need for duplication of explanations on who the people involved were, or repeated "see below"s. It puts the architectural changes into some kind of context, making it easier to follow which person was responsible for which set of changes. It also avoids the "switchback ride" element of a 15th-century to 19th-century chronology for the architecture being followed by a lurch back to the 16th century for the "residents" section.

There's also a broader issue, in that – because so many of the early architectural records have been lost – a stand-alone architecture section is by necessity going to be very spotty. (As mentioned above, even the usually-authoritative Pevsner is unsure even of the century of construction, and a firm set of records doesn't start until 1684.) A chronological narrative avoids a large gap between 1514 and 1684, where we can show that the house existed and was occupied but have no architectural history, by allowing us to at least cover the occupants of the house (who are documented).

If there's a broad consensus to re-split the article into separate sections, it could certainly be done, but I think it works better in this format – the history of this house is very much the history of its occupants and the assorted alterations they made, and (especially in the 19th century) the changing nature of the surrounding area, and I think in these circumstances it works better as a straight chronological narrative. – iridescent 16:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Writing an architectural history of the house would not be partcularly easy, as there is a considerable amount of conflicting evidence. What is possible and not too hard, is to include two written descriptions, one of the house as it appeared in the painting and two engravings of the late 17th century, and another description of the house as it is now. This should also mention the interiors. You said before that the toilet block was evidence of changes made in the 20th century. Were there changes in the Art Deco style made to the interiors?

I would tend to structure this so that the description of the present house comes towards the top, before the history of the owners. I would tend to call the section "Description" rather than "Architecture".

The description of the earlier state, based on the Primary evidence of the pictures could then be included at the point in the narrative at which the painting was done. I would be happy to contribute a description of the earlier state.

Otherwise, I agree that moving through the history of the house, owner by owner, works well in this particular case. I would not suggest a complete restructuring, because of the nature of the house itself.

Just thought about this. An easy way to go would be to merely relabel the headings with a date or the name of a period. Then it would constitute a history of the house, rather than a history of its owners. :-) Amandajm (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I see there has been a reorganization of the article. Should I reread it or wait? Awadewit (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It should (touch wood) be stable in its current structure. – iridescent 13:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - This organization is much better, in my opinion, and the writing is tighter. Thanks for your hard work! Awadewit (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Declaration: I have edited this page (in a minor way) in the past, so won't vote support or oppose. I think it is a good informative and well illustrated page and the prose is fine, but I do have one of two queries and observations. The info box states that the style of architecture is Elizabethan - it is not! It is stated "The house and detached tower are among the earliest uses of brick as the principal building material for an English house" - is this true? Brick building had been fairly commonplace for years before this, see Tattershall castle which is just one English example that springs instantly to mind. Is all the brick work contemporary to the stated building of the house in 1513? - I doubt much of it is. So is this statement true "the current house is one of the oldest surviving English brick houses."? The tower is interesting - the machiolations are crenelations look to have been added (to romanticise it) in the early 19th/late 18th century. Whatever, I don't see any Tudor features to that tower at all, so what leads to the conclusion that it is Tudor? In all, it's a good, interesting page, but, I would prefer to see solid complete sections on architecture and history, to my mind the article seems all over the place with too many little half sections. It needs to be made more solid. I don't agree with those, above, who feel this is not possible. Giano (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree entirely about the infobox; that's my fault entirely, as I added "Elizabethan" as a placeholder and forgot to expand it – now fixed (to the clumsy Elizabethan/Georgian/Gothic Revival, but I can't think of a clearer way to summarise the confusing melange of architectural styles).The "one of the oldest surviving brick houses in England" is a direct quote from Pevsner (from the introduction of London volume 4 – page 11 in the current edition). As it seems to be causing problems, I'm more than happy to remove it if it's causing problems – I agree that it's potentially misleading (Forty Hall, for example, is only a couple of miles away and is also brick-built and from the same period). Regarding the tower, I agree that it doesn't look Tudor, but as every source seems to concur that it dates from the late 15th or early 16th century, I think we need to go with what the sources say. (The crenellations definitely date to before the 18th century – they're already there in this engraving of circa 1700 based on a 1686 painting.)
    As I say above, it's certainly possible to separate the architecture and inhabitants back out into separate sections, but I think it's a more useful article as a single chronological narrative, as it makes it clearer as to who was making which alteration at which time – a separate Architecture section would need to keep breaking off to explain who all the persons involved were, duplicating content. – iridescent 16:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the info box - that is one of the problems with info boxes and historic buildings. At least, as yet, no one has forced the dreaded "design team" section upon it. All this complicated detail needs to be properly explained in the lead, an info box in this instance is just meaningless. I think the the page does need a synopsis of the architecture in a section of its own, eg: The building was remodelled in 1650 with a new roof; in 1750, the west wing with sash windows was built; in 1850, an extension in appalling taste was added, in 1950 a new lavatory block was built and so on with a short architectural description of each development. Then in a later section you can say Sir Humphrey Bumphrey was responsible for the 1750 wing, where he kept his mistress and 14 cats - try to distinguish the architecture and what happened within. This is so near FA standard - don't despair. Giano (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I believe you (Giano) have heard my opinions of infoboxes on architectural articles and the necessity thereof once or twice, but I thought that in this case it might actually be quite useful to have it as a summary near the top. I agree with adding a synopsis of the architecture to the lead – I'll have a go at one, although I still think that it makes sense to have the details of the changes in the text, attached to the section on the people who made each change. – iridescent 16:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK then, let me know when you are done, then we'll see if we can rustle up some independent reviewers who are interested and knowledgable on the subject. Giano (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tower I'm sure that there is a source somewhere that says the crenellations were added to the tower in the 19th century. This plainly isn't accurate, because of the pics.

The source that I found makes it clear that the purpose of the tower was known, and there hardly seems reason to doubt that statement, made in the 1820s.

I've yet to see any source that says the purpose of the tower is known. There's speculation that it was a dovecote or somehow connected with falconry, but the sources saying that make it clear that it's conjecture. – iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet there is another source that says that a previous owner didn't know what the tower was for, but kept it in order. This seems a very curious contradiction. Until one looks at the map of the 1600s.

Ok! Here's some more questions to consider:

I recommend ignoring the red colour which seems to indicate roofs. They might not all be roofs, but a misinterpretation of the colourer. Part of it is the "ditch"/decline/"moat" to the west of the house. (right in this pic)

Nobody except you is interpreting the red shaded area as depicting a roof. It clearly shows the red walls bounding the south and west of the estate from the Moselle floodplain, which still stand today. – iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the map. There is a statement in the caption in the present article that neither the house nor church is depicted accurately.

• In the case of the house, we are looking at it from the rear (because north is south and south is north). (so east is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet..... ). We really have no idea if it is an accurate depiction of the house or not.

This is a small detail from a much larger map, which depicts dozens of buildings. As plenty of structures such as Dovecote Manor and the Tottenham High Cross can be verified against contemporary sources as not being shown correctly, there's insufficient grounds to assume Clay's depiction of this particular building is accurate without corroborating evidence from elsewhere. – iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• In the case of the church, the map shows a building with a tower at the western end, the nave higher than the north aisle (which is the one we can see), the nave/chancel continuing at the same height beyond the aisle, the aisle being crossed by a transept or vestry with a high gable, which is well towards the eastern end of the building. Though crudely drawn, all these features are still visible in the church as it exists today. The one feature which is depicted on the map that is no longer present is a spire on the tower. Let me put it to you that I believe that describing the depiction of the church as inaccurate is in error.

The depiction of the church has no particular resemblance to the church as exists today, and is identical to the depiction of other churches on the map. (The buildings on the map are almost all shown in generic forms, with all houses identical and with north-cacing doors and windows and all churches shown as long huts.) The long straight building ending in a pointed spire has no particular resemblance to the actual All Hallows, which is a cruciform Norman church with a crennelated tower, and certainly not enough resemblance to claim that it's an architecturally accurate depiction. – iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• The house. What we see in the image on the map of the 1600s is the "back view" of the house, presumably. The tower which still exists (the "well tower", if I may call it that) stands to the right side of the main part of the house. The "back view" shows us two blocks with gables, and what could be another tower, rising out of the centre of the building.

One thing is absolutely unmistakable. This is that (on the map at least) there was another tower, narrower than the "well tower" and at the diagonally opposite corner of the building. This tower is topped by a spire.

My question is this: when a previous owner said that he maintained the old tower because of its history (or words to that effect), was he in fact referring to the tower at the north-eastern corner of the building, (and not longer there,) and not the well-tower which stood in a decline near the south-western corner of the building, the purpose of which he was perfectly familiar with?

If he was, there's no evidence for it, so we're back into original research. It's certainly possible that the map is correct in showing a tower on the northeast corner, but there's no written, pictorial or archaeological evidence for said tower being there. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but it's insufficient grounds for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. – iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Foundations. There is a stament in one of the texts that the "foundations" indicate the great antiqity of the building. Which foundations precisely?

Not sure what you're talking about – which source? The only "great antiquity" quote I can think of is the 2nd Baron Coleraine's "In respect to its great antiquity more than conveniency, I keep the old brick tower in good repair, although I am not able to discover the founder thereof; and among the other anticaglia of this place I range Sir William Compton's coat of armes, which I took out of the old porch when I raised the tower in the front of the house", but that's a reference to the round tower and the remodelling of the south porch, not to the foundations of the building itself. – iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The archaeologists dug in a couple of places. One dig appears to have taken place in the vicinity of the north-eastern corner of the present house.

At some point the archaeologists turned up old chalk foundations. It would be interesting to know more about these foundations, precisely what they were like, how extensive, and how deep. Someone must have written a "dig report".

They may well have done, but if they have it's certainly not been published. – iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Are the foundations of the south front in evidence? Are the lower courses of bricks of the south front any different from those further up the building? What sort of bricks and bond are used in the "well tower" and how do they comply with the south front?

The tower is built of typical Elizabethan pantile type bricks – I haven't the slightest idea about the bond used, to be honest, although someone who really cared could work it out. The facade of the house itself has been so heavily rebuilt that the brick facing is consistent on each of the four faces (although it varies between the four faces), while the interior is swathed in plaster from its time as a school so there's nothing of the original stonework/brickwork to be seen. – iridescent 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

PS I loathe all boxes, unless they are horizontal and at the bottom of the page, like the one that lists the dioceses and cathedrals of England.

Amandajm (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. All architectural pages on older subjects suffer from the same thorny structural issue, namely: should it be based on a chronological narrative, or on topic-oriented sections such as "Architecture", "History", etc ? Both patterns have their advantages. Neither is perfect, as discussed above and here, and the main author has apparently changed his mind a few times. I like the compromise currently in place, which seems to be the product of much thought, and reads very well to somebody—me—coming to the page for the first time. Good prose, too. Bishonen | talk 13:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC).
• Support. A reasonably comprehensive account of the little-known Grade I building in London. More information on architecture is welcome, though. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As mentioned somewhere in the morass above, it's a hard one to expand architecture-wise – the records of its building and early history are destroyed, so even the most reliable sources are just speculation – it would be perfectly possible to make a lot of educated guesses, but they would be pure OR. The only two recent sources to discuss the architectural history are Pegram's 1987 paper (later published as a stand-alone short book) and Pevsner, both of which have been pretty much strip-mined dry for what little we have. – iridescent 19:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Amandajm (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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