Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of houses and associated buildings by John Douglas/archive1

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:40, 26 December 2009 [1].

List of houses and associated buildings by John Douglas[edit]

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because...it is a companion to the featured lists List of new churches by John Douglas and List of church restorations, amendments and furniture by John Douglas. Its lead is similar to the other lists, suitably modified for this list of houses. The table is similar apart from one major change: as the proportion of images is less than the other lists, they have been included in a separate strip, rather than integrated as a column within the list, in order to avoid too much white space. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check "disambig links" in the toolbox. bamse (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed those! Done Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written and well sourced list. Ruslik_Zero 16:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "his output" - rather clinical for me. Perhaps something like architectural contributions?
  • "output" changed to "designs" - "architect" appears in the previous sentence - and why use longer words? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Douglas was born " any real need to repeat full name?
  • Since a sub is required for ref 1, perhaps you could be kind enough to explain why there's such a large variation in when he established his office.
  • No one knows. I've added a ref from his biographer (the standard work on Douglas) which includes a footnote quoting it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of third para referenced. Is it using the one at the end of para 4? No harm in reusing it so we don't have an entirely unref'ed para.
  • Sorry, this must have been accidentally deleted. Restored. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "embrace a spectrum of grandeur" - says who? This is very POV.
  • Not really. Spectrum = range; grandeur = size+. So amended it to a rather "boring" (?safe) version! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny, I thought as I was complaining about it that in its literal sense it was probably okay, but it just read like a fan's review.. safe may be boring but also unequivocally neutral! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to cottages, such as the pair of cottages known" - repetition of cottage too soon.
  • "those excluded include are small houses, cottages and outbuildings" - may I ask why? We've seen some cottages are included so I'm not sure what criteria you've applied when it comes to excluding certain other buildings.
  • Or are all those you've excluded as a result of it being "not been possible to identify the structure or its location" or have you excluded more on other grounds?
  • Bronwylfa - an unlinked work for an unlinked person which isn't listed and most of which isn't original. How does this make the cut? Similar for Home Place.
  • I originally thought that Bronwylfa was (before the fire) a notable building, but cannot find sources to adequately confirm this. So I've deleted it completely. As for Home Place, it's included because it is a house in an area "at a distance away from his office in Chester" (para 4). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was a house which has been attributed to Douglas." does this (and similar comments) imply that there's no substantive/definitive evidence it was by Douglas?
  • I tried to explain in para 4 that it was considered by Hubbard that it, and others, were by Douglas "on stylistic grounds together with evidence of a local association". Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 129 to 142 shouldn't have spaces between any of them.
  • Going back to "House" - "unusual example of Douglas' work" why is it unusual?
  • Ref 1 appears to have a nasty [1] in-line link in it.
  • Not a "nasty" link, but one which could be helpful. If you use it, you are taken to the home page of the ODNB; so if you are a subscriber (in the UK, all you need is a public library card) you can then access the ref. And, even better, if you are already logged on to the ODNB website via another tab, you are taken straight to the John Douglas page. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No denying the link's utility, simply its format - bare links and all that, not really what we want to see in featured content. Proper cite templates ought to be used. I know this is a ref within a ref (and I can't deny that I'm hopeless with them) but there are ways to include refs properly rather than the [1] + arrow linking. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, hadn't thought of that. Amended and it seems to work OK. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 82 is missing a space in the accessdate

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful and detailed review. I have tried to answer all the points raised. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I responded to a couple of your answers in-line. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amended the ref. Is it all OK now? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: I would like to see a key added for the article, to distinguish between I and II, as well as the three colors. It's mentioned in one of the paragraphs, but that can be turned into the key, as at 5 paragraphs the lead is quite lengthy (the two final ones could be combined afterwards. Wizardman 00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a key, reduced the text and combined the last two paras. I've not designed a key before; it this how it should be? If not please feel free to advise/amend/improve. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Key looks good. Support don't see further issues. Wizardman 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

Comments from Hassocks

  • Another high-quality John Douglas list. I like the listed buildings key: a very elegant solution (much more so than the waffly prose I have used in my listed buildings articles!). I have a few observations and queries:
  • The key was not my idea; Wizardman must take the credit for that.

Lead

  • Douglas' new houses embrace a range of sizes, from substantial country houses, such as Oakmere Hall and Abbeystead House, to cottages, such as the pair known as Tai Cochin, workers' houses, such as those in Port Sunlight, and the block of flats known as Parker's Buildings in Chester. Lots of commas make this sentence difficult to parse. I've played around with it, inserting different combinations of dashes, semicolons, brackets and so on; not sure what the best solution is at the moment. I'll continue to think about it.
  • I've substituted some semicolons and changed the end of the sentence. Does this work?

Table

  • Sorting: in the "Name" column, should 6–11 Grosvenor Park Road sort before 31 and 33 Dee Banks? Likewise with 115 Foregate Street, Chester and 26 Southbank, Great Budworth in the "Location" column. (I'm not sure about this myself.)
  • I've sorted the numerical addresses. but I think where a house has a name, it should sort with the other names.
  • In the entry for Saighton Grange, the year (1894–86) seems to have a typo.
  • Fixed
  • The sorting for entries containing the year 1881 may need tweaking. When you sort that column, the order is like this:
1881
1. 1881–82; 2. 1892–94
c. 1881
1881–82
...whereas the default unsorted order is:
1881
1881–82
1. 1881–82; 2. 1892–94
c. 1881
...which looks correct. Tweaking the hidden sort keys should fix this.
  • Fixed.
  • Grosvenor Park Lodge's Grade II sorting isn't working.
  • Fixed.
  • Several locations lack coordinates. Is this intentional, or have you not found them?
  • I wondered if lack of coordinates = demolished buildings, but that doesn't seem to be the case. In some cases, I find it difficult to determine which of the buildings in the list have been demolished, just using the details presented in the text. For example, Googling suggests that Home Place in Oxted is no longer standing, and the entry in the list sort of implies it (no accompanying article, no English Heritage listing), but does not state it explicitly. Perhaps you could introduce a colour code (with accessibility key such as *) to show demolished buildings?
  • I've added the coords for Cilcain Hall (thought I had done that earlier). The other absentees are when I cannot accurately find the building. I hope all the others are OK; sometimes, especially with farmhouses, it is difficult to be absolutely sure. I have positive evidence of only one complete demolition - Barrowmore Hall; so if it doesn't say it's demolished, it either isn't, or I cannot be sure.
  • In the blurb for Grosvenor Park Lodge, try his first known use to avoid repetition of Douglas'.
  • Done.
  • In Shotwick House: In 1907 it was enlarged and rebuilt after a fire for Thorneycroft Vernon reads slightly better as After a fire in 1907 it was enlarged and rebuilt for Thorneycroft Vernon (assuming the fire was in 1907!), although on reflection the difference is small.
  • Done.
  • In Hill Bark Farmhouse, try with the upper storey half-timbered → with a half-timbered upper storey.
  • Done.
  • In Eaton Boat, try they were built in stone → they were built in stone.
  • Sorry, I can't spot the difference.
  • In Whitegate Vicarage, partly-jettied should be partly jettied or part-jettied.
  • Done.
  • In Dedwyddfa, This house has been attributed to Douglas. would be snappier.
  • Done.

Refs

  • Refs [7] and [9] refer to the same page range, and can therefore be combined.
  • Done.
  • Same for refs [84] and [85].
  • Ref [85] was an error which I have corrected.
  • Refs [11] and [28] need pp..
  • Ref [102] seems to have a typo.
  • Both fixed.

Alt text

  • Perfect apart from one spelling error: stories → storeys in Bath Street, Chester.
  • Done.

I have placed this FLC on my watch list. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the trouble you've taken over this review - most helpful. I hope I have corrected and/or answered the points made. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support and follow-up Thanks for making these changes, and for your other clarifications. I have made two edits: one on Eaton Boat, where my original comment had a typo which rendered it meaningless (sorry!)—I have changed "they" to "these"; and one addition of coordinates. My technique for finding coordinates, in the absence of accurate grid references or other data to base these on, is a bit time-consuming but usually works in the end: using the Images of England photo and address description (or any other available address info), I search on Google Maps satellite view for the building. I did this for Abbotsford and found it on a small lane off Warrington Road. Obviously it helps if the building has a distinctive roofline, and it can get frustrating! You can then confirm the coordinates by converting them back into a grid reference and comparing them with a map or with the basic coordinates given on the IoE listing. (For IoE listings where the full grid reference is quoted, which is usually the case in Sussex, I convert that into coordinates using www.nearby.org.uk) This might help with West Lodge and Green Farmhouse. I accept your rationale for demolished buildings and the lack of definitive evidence. The rewritten sentence in the lead looks much clearer; everything else is fine as well. Hope you can find the other two coordinates I referred to, but it's not a problem if you can't. Support accordingly – Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:48, 20 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_houses_and_associated_buildings_by_John_Douglas/archive1&oldid=1138486512"