Talk:Pitfour estate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Well done!

A mansion like a dreadnought, Admiral Ferguson creating his private ocean, megalomania and hubris. Fine article (and much more better than mine...). I think an important detail is the temple at reduced scale, because it enlarges landscape seen from the commanding outlook, the veranda. (What means a Cold bath in tropical Scotland? The alligator story, always cited, do you believe it?) - The map was compiled of four sheets Ordnance survey maps. -- RTH (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a fascinating place and the family story intrigues me as they seem to be great characters! There are some photos of the bath in the Temple here. What remains of The Temple has been held up by scaffolding for a number of years now. It is such a shame so much has fallen into disrepair. I don't think the 'bath' was big enough for alligators but it does make for a good story!

The gardens also used to feature some beautiful statues, both large and small but all are now gone. There are some old postcards showing the house, gardens, lake etc here that show it in it's glory days but I doubt if they could be used because of copyright.

Thank you for making the map - another editor kindly translated your article on de for me as I was amazed when I came across it after finding your map! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The map was manufactured by our Kartenwerkstatt, thanks have to go not to me but to NNW! - Nothing amazing about my special interest in garden history and the Picturesque (translated William Gilpin and wrote C. C. L. Hirschfeld, author of Theorie der Gartenkunst) - The condition of the gothic boat house, disappearing, is heart-breaking, the loss of statues, too, and Strichen seems to be a haunted ruin, not to visit at midnight. - My latest article is Hafod Estate (sorry, it is Welsh, but wonderfull, and Johnes was a also a great character, I think). -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTH (talk • contribs) 14:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC) (Sign. nachgeholt: RTH (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC))

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pitfour estate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 01:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article. I'll begin with some initial comments sometime within the next 24-36 hours after a few readings and confirming some of the citations, etc. Thanks! --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Fergusons were Episcopalian" - link Episcopalian to the Scottish Episcopal Church. Americans will think of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States and wonder why you didn't say "Anglican"

Image review

• File:Pitfour House, side view.jpg - Questionable: Commons file tagged as PD but insufficient information to establishes how the image qualifies as PD (date of creation or publication, authorship or other publishing information lacking).
• File:Aberdeenshire UK location map.svg - OK properly tagged user-generated content, CC3.0
• File:Pitfour House map.png - OK - properly tagged Public Domain.
• File:Pitfour House, Aberdeenshire, side view - the 'Blenheim of the North'.jpg -- Questionable: Commons file tagged as PD but insufficient information to establishes how the image qualifies as PD (date of creation or publication, authorship or other publishing information lacking).
• File:Pitfour Chapel, cropped.jpg - OK properly tagged free content CC3.0
• File:Pitfour stables, cropped.jpg - OK properly tagged free content CC3.0
• File:Pitfour Lake showing island.jpg - OK properly tagged free content CC3.0
• File:Observatory at Drinnie's Wood.jpg - OK - CC2.0 UK Geograph

Review and criteria analysis

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I would recommend you seek an editor who does copyediting (Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors) to fix this article's shortcomings before seeking another GA review.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Article needs an intensive copyedit (c/e) for basic style/formatting errors and to fix awkward syntax and sentence structures. I think these copyediting concerns are too substantial and require too exhaustive of a time and effort to rectify that it should be done outside of the GA process, and such preparations should be done before seeking another GA review.

• The article was copy edited by the GOCE and Eric Corbett also did some copy editing.

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   I would organize the article differently, but generally the article complies with the MOS policies required by criteria 1b.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Article does have an acceptable reference section

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Many statements in the article need to be properly sourced.

• • • Some examples might have been helpful.

1. C. No original research:

   Do not see any evidence or indication of original research.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Seems to cover the major aspects of the subject.

   B. Focused:

   Copyediting would improve the focus. The paragraphs tend to fall into tangents, rambling clauses. These issues interfere with proper adherence with the principles of WP:SUMMARY.

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems to be neutral. No evidence or indication of bias.

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No evidence or indication of edit-warring or content disputes.

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Most images are properly tagged, two questionable because of insufficient information.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images are relevant

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   1a criteria compliance would take too much time and is best done outside GA process.

• Thank you for reviewing this article, ColonelHenry; I did wait until after it had been copy edited by the GOCE before nominating it for GA and this was undertaken. Your comments are appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Adding a couple of further comments. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pitfour estate/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Wonderful to read
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See comments
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yet to verify
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No issues
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

This article has clearly undergone significant renovation since the previous review. I find this article nearly faultless, although I am yet to check sources and check for close paraphrasing. Some notes: --LT910001 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• This article is a delight to read and I always enjoy reading wiki entries with descriptions such as "As of 2013 the temple is in a ruinous state"!
• “Buchan attributes:" suggest add "[title] Buchan attributes" to give some context as to who Buchan is.  Done
• Lastly, and the reason I left the note in the assessment per the MOS, is that this article has occasionally a very strange way of describing the owner by title and not name. For example, "Drinnie's Observatory was built by the fifth laird and later renovated by the local council." Such instances should be replaced with the name of the laird or appended to read: "The third lard, James Ferguson...".

Thanks, LT910001, the fluency is definitely down to Eric! I think I've addressed the Buchan attributes query by adding local historian.

We're presently checking through the article to tackle the point you raised about naming the lairds; it is a little awkward as the first three were all James Ferguson (although the second laird, Lord Pitfour, isn't such a problem) then the last three were all George Ferguson. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive and helpful comments, LT910001, they are much appreciated. Eric and I have given the article some tweaks this afternoon in line with your suggestions. We think we've incorporated them now for whenever you're ready to have another look through it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

The article reads much better. I see no issues preventing promotion, and have made the required changes. Well done! --LT910001 (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)