Talk:Mansfield stone

AI prompts

The text of this article was created with the assistance of Google Gemini Pro 3.0. The prompts were:

• First, the information on pp. 71 and 73 of Sedimentary rocks 61-134 by Francis G. Dimes in Conservation of Building and Decorative Stone eds. John Ashurst, Francis G Dimes ISBN-13: 978-0-7506-3898-2 : [text]
• create an article entirely from the Dimes' work
• use '' for emphasis, not **
• categories
• create cite book and sfn for the attached file [Parrys's book]. collect information about mansfield stone.
• suggest changes to wikitext

Manual checking and editing followed. Викидим (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Verification Report

Made by Claude Opus 4.6, prompt is at the bottom, this report verifies the claims made in the Mansfield stone article against its three cited sources:

• Dimes (1998) – Francis G. Dimes, "Sedimentary Rocks", in Conservation of Building and Decorative Stone, Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Lott (2001) – Graham Lott, "Geology and building stones in the East Midlands", Mercian Geologist, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 97–122.
• Parry & Lott (2013) – Stephen Parry and Graham Lott, A Building Stone Atlas of Nottinghamshire, British Geological Survey / English Heritage.

Claim verification

Geology and composition

Claim	Source cited	Verified?	Notes
"Sandy dolomitic limestone (or calcareous sandstone) belonging to the Cadeby Formation"	Parry & Lott 2013, p. 4; Lott 2001, p. 105	Y	Supported by both sources. Dimes 1998 calls it "a fine-grained dolomitic sandstone" rather than "sandy dolomitic limestone"; this reflects genuine ambiguity in classification.
Infobox type listed as "Sandstone"	—	N Partially	Misleading. Lott 2001 and Parry & Lott 2013 classify it as a dolomitic limestone with high sand content. Dimes 1998 does call it "a true sandstone" and distinguishes it from Mansfield Woodhouse Stone (a dolomitic limestone). The body text handles the ambiguity better than the infobox.
"High quartz sand content (up to 50%)"	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Lott states "dolomitic limestones with a high quartz sand content (up to 50% siliciclastic sand grains)."
"Commonly cross-cut by greenish-grey clay seams"	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Supported. Also mentioned in Dimes 1998.
"Only building stones produced in Nottinghamshire to have achieved 'national status'"	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Lott states they are "the only building stones from Nottinghamshire to have achieved any kind of national status."
"Fine-grained, even-grained freestone which exhibits current bedding"	Dimes 1998, p. 71	Y	Dimes states "The stone is fine- and even-grained, current bedded freestone."
Distinct from stone at Mansfield Woodhouse, which lacks high sand content	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Lott states "At nearby Mansfield Woodhouse the quartz sand content of the limestone has all but disappeared." Also confirmed by Dimes 1998.
Infobox composition: "Quartz, Dolomite, Calcium carbonate, Silica"	—	N Partially	Somewhat confused. Quartz is silica; dolomite contains calcium and magnesium carbonate. The composition does not clearly reflect the source descriptions (quartz sand grains cemented by dolomite, calcium carbonate, and silica).

Varieties

Claim	Source cited	Verified?	Notes
Mansfield Red: "dull red", could be "easily mistaken for New Red Sandstone" (Sedgwick, 1829)	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Lott quotes the Sedgwick (1829) passage including these phrases.
Mansfield Red: "now considered 'long worked out'"	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Lott states the Red variety was "long worked out."
Mansfield White: "yellowish-white variety that weathers to white"	Dimes 1998, p. 71	Y	Dimes states "commonly yellowish-white when quarried but tends to weather white on exposure."
White Mansfield (or Gregory) Quarry remaining active into the early 21st century	Lott 2001, p. 107	Y	Lott states "the only survivor from this long tradition is the White Mansfield Quarry (or Gregory Quarry), now owned by the Rare Stone Group."

History and quarrying

Claim	Source cited	Verified?	Notes
"An 1856 survey listed three quarries in operation, owned by Charles Lindley"	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Lott states "In 1856 the first national survey of quarrying carried out by the Geological Survey listed three Mansfield building stone quarries owned by Charles Lindley (Hunt, 1860)."
Red stone costing 9d per cubic foot	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Lott states "9d per cube foot for random sized blocks."
By 1861, quarries at Chesterfield Road, Rock Valley, and West Hill	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Confirmed.
George Gilbert Scott described it as "one of the best building stones in the kingdom"	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Lott quotes Scott via Aveline (1861).
By 1930, Rock Valley quarries disused, Lindley's White Mansfield the major producer	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Confirmed.

Architectural use — Red Mansfield

Claim	Source cited	Verified?	Notes
Watson Fothergill used it for 19th-century Nottingham buildings	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Lott states it "was extensively used by the local Nottingham architect Watson-Fothergill in his 19th century city centre buildings."
Decorative columns in Victorian villas	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Lott states it "is common as small, decorative columns in some of the larger Victorian villas."
Midland Grand Hotel (St Pancras): capitals and piers alongside Shap granite columns	Dimes 1998, p. 71; Parry & Lott 2013, p. 4	Y	Dimes states "Red Mansfield forms the capitals and piers alongside the Shap Granite columns at St Pancras Station."
Hotel designed as "showpiece" for the Midland Railway	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Lott states it "was designed as a showpiece of the Midland Railway Company."
Shire Hall, Nottingham: "imposing half-columns"	Parry & Lott 2013, p. 4; Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Parry & Lott caption states "Imposing half-columns of 'Mansfield Red'." Lott mentions "the large pillasters that front the 18th century Shire Hall."
Kelham Hall: decorative work	Parry & Lott 2013, p. 4	Y	Parry & Lott 2013 mentions "Kelham Hall near Newark" in context of Red Mansfield decorative work.
Albert Memorial pavement	Dimes 1998, p. 71	Y	Dimes states it "forms part of the pavement of the Albert Memorial."
Trafalgar Square terrace paving	Dimes 1998, p. 71; Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Both sources confirm. Dimes says "originally used for paving in Trafalgar Square."
Castle Brewery, Newark: quoins	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Lott states "the quoins of the Castle Brewery, Newark."

Architectural use — White Mansfield

Claim	Source cited	Verified?	Notes
Mansfield Town Hall and railway viaduct	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Confirmed.
Newark 18th-century Town Hall	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Lott states "the 18th century town hall at Newark."
Southwell Minster largely built of Mansfield White alongside imported Bolsover stone	Parry & Lott 2013, p. 4	Y	Confirmed. Also supported by Lott 2001.
13th-century Chapter House carved capitals	Lott 2001, p. 106	Y	Lott mentions "the foliage carved on the capitals of the 13th century Chapter House of Southwell Minster."
Modern quarries provided stone for the new visitor centre	Lott 2001, p. 97	Y	Lott states "the new visitor centre at Southwell Minster (White Mansfield Stone)."
Bolsover Castle Keep (1612–1621) as "unrivalled example"	Dimes 1998, p. 71	Y	Dimes states "The Keep, or Little Castle (1612-1621) of that impressively-sited large house, Bolsover Castle, Derbyshire, provides an unrivalled example."
Palace of Westminster: Mansfield White selected for construction in 1839	Lott 2001, p. 120	Y	Lott states "Those eventually selected included Mansfield White and Bolsover." Also confirmed by Parry & Lott 2013.
"Dimes claims the use of Mansfield Woodside"	Dimes 1998, p. 73	N Error	Dimes consistently uses "Mansfield Woodhouse", not "Mansfield Woodside." The term "Woodside" does not appear anywhere in the source. This should be corrected to "Mansfield Woodhouse."
Municipal Buildings, Windsor, Berkshire (1852)	Dimes 1998, p. 73	Y	Dimes states "Watson records its use for the Municipal Buildings (1852) in Windsor, Berkshire." Note: the article wikilinks to "Guildhall, Windsor" — this may be the same building under a different name, but the source says "Municipal Buildings."

Issues identified

Factual errors

1. "Mansfield Woodside" should be "Mansfield Woodhouse" — The article states: "Dimes claims the use of Mansfield Woodside". However, Dimes 1998 consistently uses the name "Mansfield Woodhouse" (pp. 73, 95–96). The term "Woodside" does not appear in any of the three sources. This is a clear factual error that should be corrected.

Accuracy concerns

1. Infobox type "Sandstone" — The classification is debatable. The Cadeby Formation is a limestone unit, and Lott 2001 and Parry & Lott 2013 describe the stone as a dolomitic limestone with high sand content. However, Dimes 1998 does call it "a true sandstone" and distinguishes it from Mansfield Woodhouse Stone "which is a dolomitic limestone." The body text's description ("sandy dolomitic limestone (or calcareous sandstone)") handles this ambiguity well, but the infobox's flat classification as "Sandstone" is potentially misleading.
2. Infobox composition — The listing of "Quartz, Dolomite, Calcium carbonate, Silica" is redundant and confused. Quartz is a form of silica; dolomite is a calcium-magnesium carbonate mineral. The sources describe the stone as comprising quartz sand grains cemented by dolomite, calcium carbonate, and silica — this is not well reflected in the infobox format.
3. "Guildhall, Windsor" vs "Municipal Buildings" — The article wikilinks the Windsor building to Guildhall, Windsor, but Dimes 1998 calls it "the Municipal Buildings (1852) in Windsor, Berkshire." These may refer to the same building, but the naming difference should be noted.

Copyright (COPYVIO) check

The article text was compared against all three source documents. No significant close paraphrasing or verbatim copying was detected. The article rewords claims in its own language throughout. Direct quotes from historical figures (Sedgwick's 1829 description, Gilbert Scott's assessment) are appropriately placed in quotation marks and attributed. Short quoted phrases from the sources (such as "long worked out", "unrivalled example", "national status") are used within the article's own sentence constructions and do not constitute copyright violations. The article's overall structure and organisation differ from all three sources.

Conclusion: No copyvio found.

Summary

The article is generally well-sourced and accurate. The majority of claims are confirmed by the cited sources. The principal issue requiring correction is the erroneous use of "Mansfield Woodside" (should be "Mansfield Woodhouse"). Secondary concerns include the potentially misleading infobox classification and composition listing. No copyright violations were detected.

The prompt was:

• You are an English Wikipedia editor. Attached is the wikitext of a wikipedia article and sources used. Verify the claims in the article and check for COPYVIO

"Woodside" typo had been Fixed. Sorting out the "sandstone" controversy is left to a skilled geologist among us, WP:User Somebody "Notme" Else. Викидим (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2026 (UTC)