Talk:Tyntesfield/Archives/2014

What else is needed to get this article to meet the Good article criteria

As the flurry of edits to this article earlier in the year seems to stopped, what else do people think is needed for the article to meet the Good article criteria before a nomination?— Rod ^talk 13:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Does the infobox not seem just a trifle too long? Other that that, I would have thought it could be submitted to the process.  Giano  16:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

We could use a collapsed infobox (as pioneered on Montacute House), otherwise we could remove some of the content, but might need a discussion of what goes: General info, Technical details or Design and construction?— Rod ^talk 16:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well as you know, I'm a great fan of the collapsed box, but as this not a page with which I'm greatly involved, I'm not that bothered, but if it's going to remain permanently on view, half that information need to be condensed of removed. I was just looking again at the page as a whole; it really wants half these short, stubby sections amalgamating, but as I recall, earlier in the year, trying to remove some of the trivia and verbosity was not universally welcomed. That's why I think that you should let it go to GA and see what the response is. I dare say that Mr Corbett will have a view on this.  Giano  16:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  I think it's rather awkwardly written in places, but given the history with Amanda I won't be the one proposing any significant changes. Better to let the GA reviewer sort it out I think. I agree with you about the infobox, bloody ridiculous. Eric Corbett 19:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have "collapsed" the infobox, and enlarged the size of the lead image (otherwise there is a lot of white space next to the contents list). I will nominate it for GA and see what comments are given by the reviewer. As ever, help with dealing with specific architectural or grammar issues will be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 09:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That is brilliant. I really like the nice big image too - people can really see what's going on there - which is the whole point of the exercise.  Giano  10:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 01:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): See Talk:Tyntesfield/Archives/2014#Potential close paraphrasing and copyright violations created after I started the more thorough review. As I said on that page, it seems to indicate the need for a thorough review before I proceed. I hope you hang in there for that - it's a good article. As a minor issue, I'm wondering about the notability of the badger information, but that might be resolved with a reliable, secondary source. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): The lead looks good to me. I was wondering if it might be good to make mention of the world war impacts, particularly World War II. I added a question about merging History and Owners sections. There's a couple of places to address tone and word more concisely/clearly, but I personally think they are slight and will work on once the citation issues are resolved and I dive into the more thorough line-by-line to sources review. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): There are some statements that are not cited. see the {{citation needed}} tags within the body of the article.  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC) b (citations to reliable sources): Citations from Exeter memories, thepeerage.com and blogs have been tagged for better sources. Done It would be good to resolve the dead links. See WP:DEADREF. Done There were some citations that linked to "thisisSomerset" and "thisisBristol" - those citations were updated with the correct links and publishers.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC) c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): Good coverage of history, architecture, National Trust b (focused): There's good coverage of the history, owner's history and present ownership by the National Trust, without going into unnecessary detail, such as not going into more detail than was necessary in the owners' biographical information. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): There's one image File:Tyntesfield1866.jpg that has a {{PD-Art}} parameter issue that would be nice to resolve. Overall, though, the article has a nice collection of images, no fair use rationales were needed / are free use, and have good descriptive captions.  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Overall: Pass/Fail: to resolve phrasing issues.
· · ·

• There are enough citation needed, dead links and better source tags that it makes sense to wait and see the response to my edits here, with a few intermittent edits that I agree with by another user, before proceeding now with the thorough analysis of the text to sources and written text. You may want to consider the comments about World War II summary in the lead and the badger section.--05:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's two more topics I'd like to bring up:

1) Should the history and owners sections be merged? It seems like it would flow a bit better if it they were merged.

2) There's some detail that I generally put in notes (i.e., interesting but does not necessarily further the subject's story.) One example is the "The initial conservation work focused around..." bullets. It would seem that could be rolled up into a summary and the number of feet / miles comments put in a note. Another potential are the details in the National Trust purchase section. It would seem that potential buyer info, etc. would be better in notes.--05:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• I updated the 1 b. "section" information re: proposal to merge history and owners sections.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of issues

• Better source - Exeter Memories, I see is  Done
• Better source - thepeerage.com, I see is  Done
• Better source - blogs  Done
• Citation needed tags  Done
• Deadlinks  Done
• Comments about joining history and owners - added to article talk page, Talk:Tyntesfield
• Comments about paring down / putting some of the detail info in notes - added to the article talk page
• Comments about the badger section  Done / removed, unless someone finds a reliable source
• See Talk:Tyntesfield/Archives/2014#Potential close paraphrasing and copyright violations regarding items found in a review of 2 sources, which seems to indicate the need for a thorough review of all source content to article content.

I hope that there is interest in hanging in through the changes. The article has come a long way and it's got great bones, just needs some work on a few outstanding source issues and rephrasing. Any additional thoughts about the veracity of my statements or things I may have missed are welcome!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops, need to make updates consistently throughout the review box, too.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

fixed {{PD-Art}} parameter on an image, marked it done in the review box.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed. The close paraphrasing issues have been resolved in the web pages. There are issues with content to pdf sources. Only able to verify one book, and that required changes to content + page numbers. I stepped in to help move the review of the webpages, but am going to go back to my original statement of January 21 that there needs to be a thorough source to content validation. Please let me know when that's been done and I'll step back in.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you say exactly what you mean by "a thorough source to content validation"?— Rod ^talk 21:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The web sites are good to go now, and it's likely that now all that can be done regarding the books has been done. I think all that remains now is the pdfs. I was surprised by the disconnect between what attributed content and the sources, as was mentioned on the talk page. Of five or six sentences first checked from Terry and Wright all of the sentences had an issue. So, I think it would be wise to go through and double-check the attribution of the pdf files. Once that is done, we should be good to go.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've now been through Wright & Steven (Terry is 1st name) & moved them to the bibliography & used sfn to show page numbers. There were a few items not completely supported by those sources for which I've now added other citations.— Rod ^talk 15:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, great! I'll do some minor spot-checking!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Pass. I'm not sure why so many pdf citations went away... the only point was to ensure that the sources had the cited content... So, we might have had a misunderstanding. Anyway, the article looks really good!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Input please

It seems like this article has a cooperative effort among several users who have moved the article towards GA readiness. I have 3 questions and it would be great to get your input:

1) Should the history and owners sections be merged? It seems like it would flow a bit better if it they were merged.

2) There's some detail that I generally put in notes (i.e., interesting but does not necessarily further the subject's story.) One example is the "The initial conservation work focused around..." bullets. It would seem that could be rolled up into a summary and the number of feet / miles comments put in a note. Another potential are the details in the National Trust purchase section. It would seem that potential buyer info, etc. would be better in notes.

3) There is information in the article about the badger problem, but the source is a blog. I am assuming, if a reliable, secondary source is not found that this is not considered notable information.

Are there any comments or thoughts about this?--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It was once a cooperative effort, but not now really.[1] Eric Corbett 18:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood, I thought that was resolved by collapsing the infobox. Any input on the items I brought up?--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not from me. Eric Corbett 18:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have attempted to address the citation needed, better source and deadlink issues. If you spot any others please let me know. I have changed a couple of bullet lists to prose. I'm not sure about trying to merge the history and owners sections as some of the development of the building does not clearly link with the particular periods of ownership. The members of the Gibbs family are obviously important to the history and development of the house and I will attempt this if others think it would be useful. I have removed the Badger section as I could not find RS sources for this.— Rod ^talk 20:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Regarding merging the owner and history information - It seems to me that most of what is history, except the background, relates to William Gibbs, with a bit of spill-over, like the chapel that was finished in 1877, 2 years after his death. I think that this actually would not be a difficult merge, retaining the family history as well as retaining the bulk of the sections for the "Purchase," "Redevelopment" and "Chapel" under William... and then have some updates to Antony's section. If there's not consensus, then we can drop this one.
2. Any opinions about paring down some of the detail in the National Trust section and/or putting some of the detail in notes? This I think is pretty much a style/format approach and with no comments, I would conclude that I'm the only one for it and will drop it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Potential close paraphrasing and copyright violations

Here are some examples of close paraphrasing and potential copyright violations. If some of them are too picky, perhaps a common phrase, etc., if you wouldn't mind commenting, that would be great!

Source	WP Article text	Source article text	Comment
Tyntesfield roof uncovered after years under wraps, National Trust, © National Trust	from the united states the trust also received â£17 4 million from the national heritage memorial fund after negotiations with its chair liz forgan its largest single	appeal through public donations and a grant of £17 5 million from the national heritage memorial fund £25 million was raised in 100 days with further help
	and plucknett simultaneously antony had electricity installed this made tyntesfield one of the first houses in the uk to have electricity antony spent the first night after	have completed new plumbing and humidistatically controlled heating one of the first houses in the country to have electric lighting in 1890 tyntesfield has also
	covered by europe's largest temporary free standing scaffold roof structure the size of 10 tennis courts this allowed over 18 months repairs and restoration to take	the largest temporary free standing scaffold roof structures in europe the size of 10 tennis courts while repairs and restoration work were taking place over the
	the house until the death of richard gibbs in 2001 tyntesfield was acquired by the national trust in june 2002 after a fundraising campaign	lost due to intermittent repair work that took place before tyntesfield was acquired by us the deteriorating condition of the roof also caused considerable	Not a huge deal, but minor rewording would be better (CH)
Oxford DNB Wm. Gibbs, © Oxford University Press 2004–14	historical periods as a result while some walls remained others were decorated with a mixture of gothic and naturalistic carvings design edit the house is built of two types	an irregularly stepped shape some exterior walls remained plain others were decorated with a mixture of gothic and naturalistic carvings gibbs had initially resisted the external ornamentation on the
	rebuilding work did not begin in earnest until 1863 when with john norton as architect and william cubitt co as sub contracted builders william gibbs had the property substantially remodelled	wealth was the rebuilding of tyntesfield between 1863 and 1865 with john norton as architect and william cubitt co as builders crace contributed to the new interiors the house doubled	this is a good example of close paraphrasing, in that the information is conveyed in much the same order as the original source and in one place an exact phrase
	praise of the resultant final building yonge hailed the chapel as the necessary culmination of the tyntesfield project giving a character to the household almost resembling that of little gidding	held there none the less it was hailed by yonge as the necessary culmination of the tyntesfield project giving ‘a character to the household almost resembling that of little gidding
	to courage brewery in 1962 by the second lord wraxall william gibbs died at tyntesfield on 3 april 1875 after a service at the estate chapel on 9 april	the widowhood of blanche gibbs and the fate of tyntesfield william gibbs died at tyntesfield on 3 april 1875 and was buried at all saints wraxall on 9 april
	million from the united states the trust also received â£17 4 million from the national heritage memorial fund after negotiations with its chair liz forgan its largest single	from the public to add to a grant of £17 4 million from the national heritage memorial fund which with further grants and private donations allowed for the
	... carried to all saints church wraxall by relays of 30 estate workers rather than in a carriage he is buried within the family plot in the church	... coffin being carried to the church by relays of thirty estate workers rather than in a carriage his widow blanche inherited tyntesfield and continued her husband's christian
	the death of richard gibbs in 2001 tyntesfield was acquired by the national trust in june 2002 after a fundraising campaign to prevent it being sold to	private donations allowed for the successful purchase of the house by the national trust in june 2002 and its rapid opening to the public to help fund
			There are a few other 5 or 6 word duplications at this report

Resources are: WP:Close paraphrasing; Paraphrase: Write it in Your Own Words, Purdue University and How to Paraphrase Without Plagiarizing, Colorado State University.

Based on the number of items found from 2 sources, the next step seems to be for a thorough review of the source content against the article content. I totally understand how tricky it is when phrases stay in our mind and we reuse them without noticing.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of copyvios/close paraphrasing was introduced in the edits between 31 March 2013 and and 4 April 2013. We have removed a lot of these but may easily have missed some. I will attempt to rephrase some of these but may take a day or two.— Rod ^talk 20:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, cool!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewording some of these. A couple where it is only a few words eg "by the national trust in June 2002" I don't think are an issue. One long phrase "as the necessary culmination of the tyntesfield project giving a character to the household almost resembling that of Little Gidding" I think is probably a direct quote (part is in speech marks) and therefore I don't want to tamper with it, however I have not (yet) got access to M. Hall, ‘Tyntesfield, Somerset’, Country Life (25 April 2002), 114–17 to check this.— Rod ^talk 20:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been unable to get that edition of Country Life, therefore I have reworded the part outside the speech marks.— Rod ^talk 10:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, great! As I mentioned in the GA review, there were so many instances of closeparaphrasing, that a good review of all the content to sources is in order. Have you been able to do research on the other sources of the article to ensure that there are no copyright / close paraphrasing issues?

If it would help, I can run duplication detection reports for each straight web page (i.e., not PDF files or books).--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Or, if you'd like to run them yourself, the link is: https://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/ --CaroleHenson (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that tool so if you'd be kind enough to run it & put any you are worried about here I will then address them. Thanks— Rod ^talk 20:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate detection reports

Here are the duplicate detection reports for the content that came from websites for citations 1-18. Two things: 1) it doesn't include the books or pdfs between 1-18 that need to be looked at and 2) the duplication error report doesn't filter out names, like the book title "the buildings of england north somerset and bristol", so of course, those can be ignored:

• Building conservation  Done
• National Trust  Done
• Oxford DNB  Done
• The Guardian  Done
• Pusey House  Done
• Minerva Conservation  Done
• Victorian web
• Images of England  Done

This should be a good start.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for obtaining these reports. I've been through and done some rewording, although many of the matches identified were titles etc or direct quotes already in speech marks and attributed.— Rod ^talk 11:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Now I've learnt how the tool works I've been through and done all the other web sites, resolving the few minor problems identified. I have also looked in the books I have for problems and not found any.— Rod ^talk 12:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool. You might want to recheck the Victorian web link - especially the 7 and 8 word duplicates. So, you're saying you've also checked all the web links after #18 and the books?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had another go but there are only so many ways you can say "seven children and eighteen grandchildren". Most of the phrase " ironwork by hart son peard and co" is the company name - as is "glass by powell and wooldridge". "supporters of the oxford movement" - if the Oxford Movement is considered as the "proper name" I don't think this is a problem, do you?— Rod ^talk 15:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I think that's fine. I've got to take a break for several hours, but I'll come back and spot check of few of the web links after citation 18 and some of the books.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I check more web sites and I think we're fine there. Yeah!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You could always say something like "Children had he, seven, who themselves had eighteen children between them." Eric Corbett 22:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point, that there are alternatives. To fit the sentence and following sentence, what do you think about "Seven children were born to William and Matilda, who had a total of eighteen children. All were devout Anglicans..." If you've got a better idea or like your first option, go for it! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a good point at all. My intention, in which I clearly failed, was to take the piss by parodying the way in which Yoda might speak. Eric Corbett 00:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm not too much in the mood to be insulted today. Constructive comments work, though, if that strikes your fancy at some point.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, if I'd meant to insult you it would have looked nothing like that. But now you come to mention it, I do think you're taking this issue rather too far. How many words have to be in the same order to meet your criteria for plagiarism/copyright? Eric Corbett 01:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your question, it has less to do with the number of words than use of phrases in the original author's voice, per WP:Close paraphrasing, but I would say 8-11 words in a row and/or multiple exact phrases in the same sentence would seem to be a concern from the guidelines. User:Rodw resolved the issues and that part of the review is good to go now, so I'm confused. What is your concern and what is your desired outcome?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

PDFs and books

Since the website issues are cleared away, I came to spot check the books and pdfs. I see that you said that you spot-checked some books and didn't see any issues. I spotchecked one book, the only book I could see, and made a couple of adjustments based upon the content and since the book was written in 2005 not using language to suggest that renovation conditions are where they were then. That's all I could do with books, then.

Regarding pdfs, I started looking at Terry and Wright... and I'm finding inconsistencies between what was cited content and what is in the documents. I put citation needed tags for the information that I did not find in the pdfs.

The one place that was most confusing was the bit about John Tynte... it said he lived there in the 1800s, but there's nothing in Wright that says that. Instead it says on page 9 that he prefers his place in Chelvey Court and likely put no money into it. I see that Tynte's Place was downgraded to a farmhouse (last paragraph on page 9), but don't see a connection of that to John Tynte. Also, there was discussion in Wright about Vowles leasing the farmhouse, but that looks to have been done through Charles Kemys Tynte (p. 16).

Again, I think that there should be a good review of the sources to content.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The Berkeley, Gloucestershire reference should have been Berkeley Square. I have removed this as not being particularly relevant to this article and added a reference for Halswell House being the family base. I have added a couple of references to the Tyntes living on the estate. I believe the claim re Chelvey Court becoming the principle residence is covered by Wright where is says "John Tynte preferring Chelvey Court as his residence" (top of page 7). I will continue looking through the other sources, but if you spot any other problems or claims which need citations I will do my best to provide them.— Rod ^talk 10:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

How is it pronounced?

To find that out was why I looked up the article... 87.114.168.4 (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This suggests TINTS-field, with which I'd agree. Someone familar with IPA (which I'm not) needs to make it official, though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

BBC would seem to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)