Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford/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 18:51, 3 November 2009 [1].

Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford[edit]

Nominator(s): Bencherlite ^Talk 11:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford/archive1

Was it a mere co-incidence that construction work at this college started just one year after the Australian cricket team's 1948 tour of England? How many horse-owning medieval bishops had links to the college? How was the college affected by the 1991 Atlantic hurricane season? Read this "unexpectedly interesting" (in the words of Johnbod) article and find out... Bencherlite ^Talk 11:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Nice hook! A few things:

Lead: The first mention of Nuffield College (the one in bold) needs to be wikilinked surely? Why is the second mention instead?
The image caption to the right of the lead, while perfectly accurate, is uninformative. Can you add a bit more detail (front of the college? anything interesting?). I find captions of a couple of words pointless.
The lead focuses heavily on the designs and then the assessment, while little mention is made of the construction (one line I think) and buildings. Could a little more emphasis be given to these? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that links weren't used in the bold type of the opening sentence; Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford starts in a similar way, for instance. If my understanding of the MOS is wrong, I'm sure someone will give me chapter and verse.
Good idea. I've expanded the caption, with a wikilink to Nuffield College for good measure. I should add that I'm trying to get some more photographs relicensed from Flickr, so might be able to use a brighter photograph before the end of this FAC.
Another good idea; added a short paragraph. Let me know if you think more is needed. Glad you liked the hook! Bencherlite ^Talk 15:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those additions are very good, I don't think more is needed. On the first instance wikilinking I'm not entirely sure of MoS policy on this one. However, I would have thought, purely for convenience, it would be the case to wikilink the first one; it may be in some articles that the title elements are not mentioned again for a while. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1c 2c. Decline: 1c. "^ a b Kay, Diane "Architecture", in Harrison. p. 503, quoting Richards, J. M. "Recent building in Oxford and Cambridge" Architectural Review (August 1952) p. 75" Locate and cite from original. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that we cite from the original publication. The above practice is used in academia and I see no Wikipedia policy that prevents us from following it here. What is good enough for scholars is good enough for us. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is from me for the requirements of 1c at FAC. Academics recontextualise all the time, and wikipedia is held to its internal standards, which for FACs meand 1c. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: citations are consistently formatted. Is this, "Hibbert, Christopher, ed (1992). "Nuffield College". The Encyclopaedia of Oxford. Pan Macmillan. ISBN 0333486145." a signed encyclopedia article? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean inconsistently formatted? Consistently formatted seems like a good thing to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I made it clearer by separating Decline from Comment. The citations are consistent. The Comment just says that one part of 1c is done. (A fiddly horribly part). Fifelfoo (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Kay's quoting of Richards: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT says to cite what you've seen, which is what I have done. What is the difficulty with this, please? The journal issue isn't available online (not even through JSTOR) and although I've now put out a request at WP:REX for help, I've only had intermittent success there in the past.
I don't have the book in front of me at present, so can't answer directly. What would be the problem if it wasn't? I may be able to reassure you in a different way when I get hold of the book, since my recollection is that not only is the encyclopaedia edited by an eminent historian (Christopher Hibbert) and published by a reputable publishing company, but it was written by a number of authorities in their field. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Say where you got it is good advice, and even reasonable when RS quotes unpublished material, or material which is actually difficult to acquire (copies of government reports known to have sketchy publication and library collection histories). When its an RS quoting an RS, well researched as an expectation includes locating and using the original RS, instead of quoting a quote. The FUTON bias of wikipedia is not an excuse here, interlibrary loans exist. As do libraries which would hold the resource themselves. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, someone has offered to go to Richmond reference library for me next week to track down the article, so fingers crossed. Does anyone have anything else in the meantime? Incidentally, I've added a couple more Flickr-relicensed photographs, including an aerial view of the college, which I hope increase reviewers' enjoyment. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update User:David Underdown has obtained the article, verified the quotation and will scan the pages to me later. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed verified the quote, and the scans are even now winging their way to Bencherlite. For the avoidance of doubt, the full paragraphs that Richards devotes to Nuffield are, if anythign, even more damning than the brief quotes used:

We have, however, to travel to Oxford to find a large-scale example of a period-style architecture which has no justification whatever on the grounds of consideration for the neighbours and represents missed opportunity of a really tragic kind. The first instalment of the new Nuffield College (architects, Harrison, Barnes and Hubbard) is now complete and occupied [ref to image]. Its site is in New Road, between Carfax and the railway station, well away from the ancient colleges, and surrounded mostly by undistinguished nineteenth century commercial buildings. It therfore presented a rare opportunity of contributing to the architecture of Oxford something belonging, as does the foundation of Nuffield College, specifically to the twentieth century, and of showing that Oxford does not live only in thepast. The clean simple lines of a modern building would have brought a breath of fresh air and sanity into the local medley of reminiscent styles, and have pioneered the rehabilitation of Oxford on sensible lines. The architects, instead, havechosen (or have been required to build) a reminissence of a Cotswold maor, complete with high-pitched gabled roof covered with stone slabs, stone-roofed dormers, mullioned bay windows and the rest. The planning is no doubt efficient and the accommodation all it should be, but this kind of compromise betwenn contemporary needs and what is imagined to be the English collegiate tradition is quite unworthy of the educational enterprise the new foundation represents. One recalls wistfully and wonderingly the far more sensitive, as well as far more contemporary, work the same architects have achieved elsewhere, notably in the Near East. The one thing to be thankful for about their latest building is that they have been content to use smooth-faced stone for its walls int he proper Oxford style and have not been tempted, in their search for rustic verilisimilitude, ito the use of rubble facing, as introduced in so many other parts of Oxford with extraordinary unpleasing results. On the other hand, if one endeavours to meet collegiate Tudor on its own ground, one still cannot fell that the most has been made of such pictorial charm as this style is capable of; for by painting the window frames and bars in a dark colour instead of light the architects have sacrificed much of the refinement of proportion, leaving the windows—especially the dormers—to read as gloomy apertures without scale or sparkle.

(outdent) My thanks again; I have safely received the scans and added some of this to the article whilst you were adding it here! Bencherlite ^Talk 22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! What a damning response. Looking around the variety of Universities in Australia I've been in, there is something for the architecture of the 20th century. Though we also have demountables from the 1940s listed due to their heritage status! Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As expected, a very fine article and an interesting read. I assume from the article that there has been no building work of any significance (either planned or executed) relating to the college since the early 1960s? The article implies as much but doesn't make it explicit (unless I missed something).--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I've not found anything saying that there has been further building work, but I've not found anything explicitly saying that there hasn't been, so I think keeping it implicit in the article is probably the best method. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible to me. Good job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I have left a few very minor points on the article's talkpage I'd like fixed, nothing major by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent, comprehensive and interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (How could I not when I am on the poster?) I see I have made 7 edits, mostly typos & pictures. Meets the criteria & on an architectural period that is I imagine under-represented here, at least for European buildings. Up to Bencherlite's usual high standard. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I thought this was pretty good when I did its GA review a few weeks ago, and it's got even better since then. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks (I think that's the first FUR I've had reviewed, so I'm glad it withstood scrutiny!). Flushed with success, I have scanned and uploaded a picture of the first, rejected, 1939 plans at File:Nuffield College 1st design.jpg and asked Awadewit to check this too. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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