Talk:William Burges/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Starting first read-through. Initial comments to follow soonest. It's a big article, so give me a few days. Tim riley (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not going to be a difficult decision. Even to a dyed-in-the-wool classicist like me the article is clearly FA material, given a few tweaks. However, I am applying GA criteria here. Even so a list of niggles follows. I shall have to have two or three goes at it, given the length of the article. Here is my first batch:

General

• Hyphens and en-dashes: the latter are wanted for date ranges, and for parentheses.

Need guidance from the Doctor here. KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure either, can you attend to this Tim?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hah! All right: will do. Tim riley (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Date range format: 1872-1891 or 1870–78 or 1865-6? The middle one is the recommended WP format, but at all events, be consistent.

Done to the middle format but needs checking I've covered them all. KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK: England and London should not be blue-linked

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Possessive of "Burges" – be consistent; at present you have both the English "Burges's" and the American "Burges'"

Done. Heavens - thought I'd caught all of these but Find and Replace throws up a further dozen or so. KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• "short but illustrious" – no doubt, but who says so?

I believe the Crook book does. I spotted something similar in the ONDB entry which uses that book as a source. KP has the book though to verify this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. This is really helpful. It's still littered with the POV I introduced originally. You should have seen it before the Doctor did! But I've read it so often, they don't register. As you identify them, I'll strip them out. I think there's more than enough in the quotes to support the contention that he was a damn good architect. KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Have tried to go through the rest of the article to pre-empt your having to point the POV comments out. Whether I've succeeded is another matter. KJP1 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly not. Apologies. KJP1 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "output was small but of outstanding quality" – ditto

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I had to go and lie down in a dark room when I read that it could even have been contemplated that this Victorian menace could have been allowed to redecorate St Paul's. That, I admit, is beside the point, except for the question of the superfluous hyphen in "re-decorate".

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Early life and travels

• £113,000 (£ 9,126,996 in 2012 adjusted for inflation" – I strongly recommend footnoting which index you are using here – prices, average earnings, share of GDP etc.

Need help from the Doctor here. KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean Tim. Its linked like that in the Clint Eastwood article..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but the excellent Measuring Worth site gives a choice of indices. RPI for e.g. ticket prices; average earnings for comparing larger sums; and share of GDP for seeing how rich people actually were. I am a dunce at economics, but I try and say which Measuring Worth index I am referring to, so that those who understand economics know what the figures refer to. Tim riley (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you do an example in the article as I don't know how I would format that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Tim riley (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Good grief! I've just clocked the WP code used at this point in the article, which is way beyond me. When I've quoted Measuring Worth, I've used no templates, but said something like "which in terms of average earnings in 2010 was the equivalent of £48,200,000.00." [which it was in this case]. I have no idea how the WP template functions, and I retreat hastily. Tim riley (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "to study engineering, his contemporaries including Dante Gabriel Rossetti and William Michael Rossetti." – this reads to me as though the Rossettis too studied engineering. Not sure if they did, but clarification would be good.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• There are a lot of statements between ref 14 and 15. Does the latter cover them all?

Will check and add as required. KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. No, reference 15 did not cover them all. Have added 3 more. KJP1 (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Early works

• "His early architectural career was relatively unsuccessful" – relative to what?

Done - reworded. KJP1 (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Most regrettable of all" – says who?

Done - removed. KJP1 (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• "over-hasty restorations" – does the quoted source actually say this?

Done - removed. KJP1 (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Burges commenced work" – couldn't he just have started or begun it?

Done - he's now "begun" it. KJP1 (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Whilst Burges designed the project" – I think this means "although" here.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Burges published a booklet the same year" – ref wanted for this statement

Done - removed as I don't have a reference. Could go back in with one. KJP1 (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork

• "built in the United Kingdom and Ireland" – Ireland had been part of the UK since 1801. If you want to make the distinction between Ireland and Britain, what about "built anywhere in the British Isles..."?

Done - The British Isles adopted. KJP1 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Despite the phenomenal efforts of its fundraisers" – hideously pedantic point, but "phenomenal" means "relating to that which can be observed"; I think you mean "extraordinary" or "prodigious".

Done - replaced with prodigious - much better. KJP1 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• "off-set" – I think the hyphen is incorrect here.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• "due to the high level of his personal involvement" – "owing to" or "because of" in British English. (I believe "due to" without a verb is okay in US usage.)

Done. KJP1 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Bishop's Throne" – capital letters wanted?

Done - removed. KJP1 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The result is "undoubtedly (his) greatest work in ecclesiastical architecture"[51] with an interior that is "overwhelming and intoxicating"…" – an inline attribution would help here, as in "The architectural historian Wilson Lawrence observes…."

Done - Direct attribution to Lawrence and Wilson. KJP1 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Here endeth the first batch. More to follow. I am enjoying this prodigiously. Tim riley (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for the review Tim! Yes I thought it had potential for FA which is why I decided to begin working on it and with the chief editor. But I do know FA is an arduous process, which is why I thought a review by your good self, and then a formal peer review for more input would be an excellent way to get it to the next level. I won't be able to attend to this today but hopefully the other editor can begin addressing the pointds before I can tomorrow. Glad you are enjoying it. A lot of passion went into it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate your efforts. The article is long and I know the commitment that will be required to work through it. But I'm so pleased you're enjoying it, although I had to go and lie down when I read your description of the "soul-inspiring one" as a "Victorian menace"! Many thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you began your review, I have added a short section on Burges's work at Worcester College, Oxford. User:GuillaumeTell's comments highlighted the need for it. But sorry it makes it even longer. KJP1 (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I do hope my request for Peer Review has not caused difficulties. I made the request long before I started working with Dr B on the article. At the time I made the request, I knew Burges merited a Good Article but had no idea how that could be achieved. Now, it looks as if we are close to achieving that, for which I am extraordinarily grateful. KJP1 (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Round two

Architectural team

• "not unique amongst Victorian" – I never know what "amongst" has got that "among" hasn't, other than two unnecessary letters

Done - now "among". KJP1 (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Burges and Bute

• "John Patrick Crichton-Stuart, 3rd Marquess of Bute KT, KSG, KGCHS (1847–1900)" – rather unusual to add all the post-nominals in such a context, and as the noble lord has a blue link some would say you don't need his dates here either.

Done - Now plain Marquess of Bute. KJP1 (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Burges as Burges was not" – you could avoid the repetition by saying "Burges, who was not"

Done - reworded. KJP1 (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "allied with Burges's genius to stupendous effect." – You really must have a citation for "stupendous", or it's POV puffery.

Done - reworded and cited. KJP1 (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "undertaken with a genius" – this is the second "genius" in two paras. I think that is one too many.

Done - reworded and the second "genius" removed. KJP1 (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Cardiff Castle

• I am unsure whether it is the second or the third marquess who "occupied the castle on visits". If it's Burges's patron, then I'd start that sentence with "The third Marquess" and the next sentence with "He".

Done. I meant the 2nd Marquess but it wasn't clear. I hope it is now. KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Almost the entire of Burges's usual team" – odd wording; how about "Almost all"?

Done - now "Almost all". KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "But it was Burges's imagination, his scholarship, his architectural and decorative talents, his inventiveness and his sheer high spirits" – more POV unless you can add a citation that justifies all six claimed qualities.

Done - by removal/re-wording, I hope. As I've mentioned, I've read this so many times, I find it hard to spot the puffery. KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The tower, in Burges's signature…" – You are trying to cram too much into one sentence, I think. I'd be tempted to make the aside about the date of Bute's marriage into a footnote.

Done - created two sentences and re-ordered the information. KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "smoking room" or "Smoking Room"? You use both in the same para.

Done - now "Smoking Room"s. KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The Octagon Tower follows" – not clear what it is following. If you mean in order of building, I'd say "followed".

Done - now "followed". KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "of the bibliophile Marquess's vast library" – two "Marquesses" in one sentence; as he had a vast library I think his bibliophilia can be taken as read. "part of his vast library" would do.

Done - now "part of his vast library." KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "whilst" – as with "amongst", above, how about a plain "while"?

Done - now "while". KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Its jelly mould ceiling in a Moorish style is particularly notable" – says who?

Done - POV removed. KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "R Popplewell Pullan" – (glorious name!) – you give W. Gualbert Saunders a full stop after his initial, above, but poor old Popplewell doesn't get one. I prefer to dispense with full stops for initials (to the consternation of our American colleagues) but whichever you prefer, please be consistent. I have just thought to check back to the Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral section, where I see a similar inconsistency of punctuation in "St. Fin" and "St John's"

Not yet done - will go and correct by removing the full stops. Will confirm when done. KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Done - I hope! Have tried to remove all full stops after initials and St, including in the photo captions. But I'm bound to have missed some. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "completed in the 1920s by the third Marquess's son" – he had three sons, I see. I imagine the son in question was the fourth Marquess, in which case "completed in the 1920s by the fourth Marquess" would be shorter but more informative.

Done - but I'm not being consistent between "2nd" Marquess and "fourth" Marquess. I'll go for "second" etc, but let me know if it should be the other way around. KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! Either will be fine, but, as you say, consistency is all. Tim riley (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem now is that other Wikipedia articles on the Butes have "2nd"/"3rd" etc. in their titles. So I'll go back and make them all numerical. KJP1 (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Done - I hope, numerical throughout. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "has 9 sculptures by Thomas Nicholls" – "nine", not "9", according to the Manual of Style. Likewise the "6" shortly after it.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The Swiss bridge, that once crossed the moat" I'd say "which", not "that" here, as the clause describes rather than defines

Done - now "which". KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The stables which lie to the north" – are there any other stables elsewhere? If not, I'd add a comma after stables. If there are, then "that" rather than "which", as defining rather than describing.

Done - only one set of stables, so comma added. KJP1 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Burges's interiors at Cardiff have not been equalled" – even with a citation this is one hell of an assertion. What does Aldrich actually say?

Done. Even better catch by yourself. Aldrich is less emphatic that I was and I have included her important "rarely" qualification. KJP1 (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Castell Coch

• At first mention in the body of the text you might blue link to the Castell Coch article.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The Keep tower, the Well Tower and the Kitchen Tower" – consistency of capitalisation

Done - capitalised consistently. KJP1 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "unfocussed" – does Newman really add a superfluous "s" to "focused"?

Done - no, Newman does not. KJP1 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Viollet-Le-Duc's chambers at Councy" – this is the second blue link to Viollet-Le-Duc in this section. I'd remove it.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Worcester College, Oxford

• I read through this as quickly as possible, trying to ignore the vandalisation of Wyatt's work. If the brackets in the Pevsner quote indicate that you have added explanatory words, they should be square brackets.

Done - sorry this section caused you pain. I won't mention the nickname Burges favoured for Wyatt, "The Great Destroyer". KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Knightshayes Court

• The two references to "Sir John…" should be replaced with "Heathcoat-Amory" – see MoS

Done - now Heathcoat-Amory throughout. KJP1 (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Park House

• "continued, somewhat slowly, until McConnochie's Cardiff mayoral year of 1880". I'm not sure what is being conveyed here. Were they completed by 1880 or did work speed up then? What is the significance of McConnochie's mayoralty?

Done - reworded and simplified. I have definitely read that the decoration took almost 10 years, work only speeding up to get it ready for McConnochie's mayoralty in 1880. But can't find the reference at present so have removed it. Will re-visit if I can locate the source. KJP1 (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "It is hard to understand how Burges could have made such a mistake." – your view or can you back it up with a citation?

Done - now a direct quote from Newman and the word "mistake" removed. Peculiar it certainly is - having been in the house when it was for sale in the early 1990s - and I do wonder how such a thoughtful architect could have made the error. But that's original research. KJP1 (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Cadw" – appears in all-caps earlier.

Done - all-caps. KJP1 (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Christ the Consoler, St Mary's and St Paul's

• "Burges's two best churches…" according to whom?

Done - now a quote from Crook, page 228. KJP1 (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "a suitable choice for a memorial church" – no doubt, but without a citation this is mere editorialising

Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "(whilst) Cork Cathedral…" – square brackets needed, and "although" would be more pleasing than "whilst".

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Tower House

• In the 1893 survey of architecture of the last half century" – the definite article implies some official status for this survey. Details, please.

Done - I've added a reference to The Builder, the architectural magazine that undertook the survey. The magazine was published between 1843 and 1966 and, over the years, included many illustrations of Burges's work. But I take your point - the general reader won't know this. Should I expand a little more? KJP1 (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It's fine now, I'd say. Tim riley (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• The second para of this section has "finest" in consecutive sentences. One too many.

Fixed, that should be "fine" now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Metalwork and jewellery

• St Finn has lost his full stop on this appearance.
• "was recently identified" – the "recently" will get out of date; best to remove it now, I suggest. See the MoS

Removed recently but the convention seems to be to spell St Finn withoout the dot, see the above sections. For consistency's sake I think it should remain or all mentions of St Finn changed to St. Finn.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd vote for leaving it without, partly because of the earlier decision on full stops after initials, and partly because I've just yanked a load of others out. KJP1 (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That's my lot for now. More to come. Tim riley (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic! I shall turn to rectifying these later today but now I must do the cleaning or I shall be lynched. KJP1 (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note on KJP1's talk page about possibly interesting articles temporarily available. Tim riley (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A brief third round; more to follow

Stained glass

• Third sentence: square brackets, not round ones.

Done♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Perhaps his highest achievement" – I think I might make "his" "Burges's" for clarity.

Done♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "of which Lawrence writes, "The impact created…" – This is just how quotations should be presented. Before going on to FAC I suggest you look at earlier quotes and consider introducing some of them in the same way, rather than plonking quotes in the middle of your prose and expecting the reader to click on the ref.

Noted - You're right, it would be much better for the reader. Shall store the note away.

• "The Blitz" – very petty point, but I wouldn't capitalise the definite article here.

Lower casing now used for The. How is the point petty? Sorry, I don't follow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I meant my point in raising the ulc of the definite article. Tim riley (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "the Mallet and Company" – is the definite article right here? And is there the faintest prospect that the red-linked company will get its own article?

That was the content I added this afternoon. I started the Bath Aqua Glass Theatre haven't got round to that yet.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Ten of the panels went onto display" – "on display"? And there's another wordy "whilst"

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Rick Turner … said" – a date in the text might be good here

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Furniture

• John Betjeman whose book on Victorian architecture and art, Ghastly Good Taste did much to re-habilitate Victorian design – according to whom?

Done - by removal. It's not essential. KJP1 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal life

• The manual of style bids us not to sandwich text between two pictures to left and right. I don't regard this as a bar to GA status, but be aware before going on to FAC.

The images need the source and author if possible. KJP tut tut the author is not the Internet LOL, can you find the url links for them and fix?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hum, I will likely need some help here. Will look at them tomorrow. The problem is that they are all over the place and I cannot tell who owns or who authored them. Take the jester photo. I don't believe the author is known, or will be known. The NPG certainly has a version; I have a, very large and scary, version that was brought for me from their shop and is looking at me as I type this. But do NPG own the copyright? It's about 150 years old, does anyone? The others are almost as bad although the authors are known. I'll see what I can do and then check back. KJP1 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Gone and stared at the Burges portrait - what a lot of effort we're putting into his memory. Interestingly, and not shown on the version in the article, it has "William Burges, architect" written in pencil on the bottom and then four capital letters "OVEY"???, again in pencil, in the bottom right. A mark, a signature, a firm? KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Louche"? The Athenaeum! Have you been in that forbidding citadel? And "clubbing" rather suggests bopping away in discos, rather than mingling with the mighty in Pall Mall. I'd be inclined to have a new para after his St James's "clubbing", with the ratting and opium ingesting as a new para.

Done-Re-ordered and added a little re. the clubs. You're right, whilst ratting may be louche, the Athenaeum, which I have not had the pleasure of visiting, is not. Although you'll know the F E Smith story, I'm sure. KJP1 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, though the National Liberal Club, off Trafalgar Square, more plausibly claims the story as its own. The Athenaeum was less than five minutes' walk from Smith's flat. Tim riley (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Burges never married" – Department of No Surprise, but I digress.

Moved up into earlier section, still worthy of mentioning I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought you'd like my tribute to Telegraph obituaries! KJP1 (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Death

• another "whilst" that I'd trim to "while" if I were you

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Under the inscription Architect of this cathedral" – I'd put this in inverted commas rather than italics.

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Legal complications obstructed Burges's wish to be buried in the cathedral he had built." – what were they and can we have a citation?

Done - ish. The citation is there but the usually comprehensive Crook merely states "But for legal difficulties, he would etc. etc." Nor is there a note. I shall scour my other sources. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• "William Burges was "the most dazzling exponent…" This is one of your quotes that would, I'm sure, read better with an in-line attribution. Tim riley (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Last batch

Stained glass

• "Working with some of the best craftsmen, his designs had a vibrancy…" – I'd deal with the hanging participle here: it was Burges, not his designs, that worked with the craftsmen.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The history of that cathedral has detailed…" – "So-and-So's history", or "the official history" or some such would help

Done - now Lawrence and Wilson's history. KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• The information about CADW's purchase of the panels is repeated from the Castell Coch section; I think you should eliminate most of the repetition (price etc) either here or in the earlier section.

Done - removed it from the Castell Coch section as it seems better here - and this section needs the "padding" more! KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Furniture

• "The Burlington Magazine of November 1963, Notes on William Burges's Painted Furniture."" – punctuation has gone awry here. The title of the magazine should be in italics and the title of the article should be in normal font within quotation marks. The closing quotes are there already, strangely.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• "astronomical" prices – imprecise and overemphatic. Can you say something like "prices for his furniture have increased x-fold between 19xx and 20xx"?

Done - ish "now commands very high prices." Less emphatic, but no more precise. Betjeman is rumoured (no source) to have paid £5 for the Narcissus washstand which I think Geoffrey Munn would easily value at £500,000 today, given its provenance. But it's pure speculation on my part. Can we live with the weaker "very high prices"? I think the best part of a million for the Zodiac Settle could justify the "very". KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal life

• "The Ambassador Extraordinary" – italicisation has gone astray

Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Georgius can never grow old.. His strong…" should the two dots be three or one?

Done - I think three, as I've edited out two sentences. KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• "FAB" – as it isn't mentioned again "the Foreign Architectural Book Society" without the FAB would be preferable, I think.

Done - but have placed FABS after the Society. It was the nickname members had, rather like the "Souls", perhaps, or Pop. But can certainly remove it if you think it better. KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Less elevated" – POV, though true.

Done - now "Other". KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Dictionary of Scottish Architects" – italicise?

Done - I think so. KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

'Death

• "a suitably gothic cemetery" – more editorialising, but pardonable here, I think.

Done - removed and replaced with London, readers may not know West Norwood. The Tite reference was only my view and didn't really add. KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

• "out-dated" – the OED hyphenates "out-of-date" but not "outdated"

Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• "middle of the last century" – "middle of the 20th century" would be better.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Does ref 211 cover all three quotes?

Yes, they're all from that monster, Reginald Turnor. I could give page numbers if you thought it necessary. KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Even had the stylistic scene remained…" – citation wanted for this sentence

Done - removed, more of my POV and I think the point that Burges was an expensive architect has already been made more than once. KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The last forty years, however…." Better as something like "In the years from 1970 to 2010" or some such. (I see I missed another "last 40 years in the lead", too.)

Done - and changed the lead also. But have put 1970 to the present, as I think that covers his continued high regard. OK? KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Burges's architecture rivals that undertaken by the greatest architects of the Victorian era" – citation, please.

Done - although changed slightly. Have put a cited reference to Pugin in which I think better emphasises his importance. KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Study of Burges

• Excellent and unusual section.

Much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

List of works

• No problem for GA that the list is incomplete, but I suggest you make it as complete as you can before going to FAC.

Can do. KJP1 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

References

• I very much like your change to the Crook 1981 references, which were previously a rather eye-watering array of bluelinks. Much better in this short form.

I take no credit, way beyond my capability. Mr Stephen is to be thanked, and I have done so. KJP1 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't grasped your rationale for putting the publication details of some books (e.g. Crinson) in the notes section when others are in the references section. It doesn't greatly bother me, and is no bar to promotion to GA, but be aware that it may be challenged at FAC. My own practice, for what it's worth, is that anything with a page number (even from CD liner notes in my music articles) is just "Smith, p. x" and the publication details are then given in the references section.

Thank you. I shall note this and discuss with the Doctor who is wiser than I in these matters. You should have seen his reaction to my original referencing "system"! KJP1 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

General

• If you click on "disambig links" in the toolbox at the top right of this page you will be given a list of your blue links that lead to disambiguation pages rather than where you want them to link to. There are eight of them, and they all need to be fixed before I conclude this review.

Shall see if I can address these now. Will confirm when done. KJP1 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Heavens, that was frightening. I thought I'd lose the lot. But I think it's done. And are we? KJP1 (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hyphenation – not a problem for GA, but if going on to FAC I suggest you check all your hyphenated words (there seem rather a lot) against the OED or Chambers or other authority, and blitz any hyphens not recognised therein.

Noted for a future review. KJP1 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Images – all excellent and, to my layman's eye, all properly documented, though I shouldn't be surprised if someone asserts at FAC that the documentation for the "Burges as architect" is inadequate. The caption for the profile image at "Architectural team" is not ideal. The other "Burges as …" pictures don't come till much later in the article, and the caption seems somewhat mystifying in isolation.

I'm going to review the images, discuss what the Doctor, and see what I can do. Apart from the jester, the original authors for the others can, I think, be identified. But the architect, for example, is a photograph of a painting on a piece of furniture. We know where the item is, but I've no idea who took the picture. Nevertheless, I'm sure more work will be required, difficult though it may be. Having read a number of FA reviews, they are terribly hot on image copyrights. But to lose them would be a great loss to the article as they convey quite a lot of his character. KJP1 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Done - With regard to the caption at Architectural Team. The other will take rather longer. KJP1 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Number style – the MoS permits either "forty years" or "40 years", but before going to FAC I advise you to check for internal consistency. I have spotted both at various points of your text.

Noted for a future review. KJP1 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If you will address these remaining points I can then proceed to the formalities. Tim riley (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent - and not too daunting. I'll get on to these this evening. Many thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Again, so many thanks; you have helped the article hugely and it has been a real pleasure working with you. KJP1 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Prose is highly readable and polished

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Most impressive range of citations.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Impressively comprehensive

   B. Focused:

   The article is long, but could not IMO be profitably broken into smaller sub-articles

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

I enjoyed this very much indeed. Like Dr B I was warmed by the passion of the true enthusiast, and it was a delight to review. My congratulations! Tim riley (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)