Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bramall Hall/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:52, 6 October 2009 [1].

---

Bramall Hall

Nominator(s): Majorly talk 00:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Bramall Hall/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Majorly talk 00:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text is done. Alt text is present (thanks), except that the two images in the lead infobox need alt text (use |alt= and |map_alt=). Eubulides (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Added some. Majorly talk 14:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. The lead image looks good now. Could you please modify the alt text for the map so that it describes where Bramhall Hall is within Manchester, and where Manchester is within England? That's the gist of the map. Details like "red circle" should be omitted as they're not important. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for details. Eubulides (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Better now? Majorly talk 19:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've moved some text around in the lead, so as to assert its importance earlier. Nevertheless, I feel that the lead could be developed further per WP:LEAD. It currently stands at one and a quarter paragraphs, with some very important details omitted, such as its mention in the Domesday Book. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Improved - is it better now? Majorly talk 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I believe the lead is much better now. Having read more on this fascinating subject, it's obvious that the Davenport family history is deeply tied to the estate's. From the absence of any links to individual Davenport or family, I assume no article about them has been written so far. I feel some of the fine detail which would be better spun off to an article about this clearly notable family, as I fail to see a demonstrable direct connection between some of the given facts and the property. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support on sourcing. I was asked to look at the page in order to help with some aspects. In doing so, I checked various sources and looked into the sourcing for various components of the page. I found no problems and I feel that the sources I was able to check were done well. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. A well written and comprehensive account of this manor house and the families who lived in it. I actually failed this at GAN some time ago, so it's great to see how it's come on since then. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Images:
• File:Bramall Hall 3.jpg lacks verified author info (especially since it was originally uploaded with C Hoyle, which one can assume might be the actual photographer.) Same issue with File:Bramall Hall 2.jpg, File:Bramall Hall lakes.jpg.

• C. Hoyle is the photographer and originally uploaded it. There is no reason to doubt they are the creator of these images. Majorly talk 15:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• It needs to be made expressly clear than. The image descriptions are junk. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I really think labelling things as junk is incredibly unhelpful. Please don't do that, especially when it's simple to fix. Majorly talk 20:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• There, fixed. Majorly talk 20:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• File:Davenport.gif has the wrong license if the dates of the artist's death are not known. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• No idea what an appropriate license is for this image published in 1851, if pd-old isn't right. Majorly talk 15:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• We need sources and death dates for the artists if you want to assert that it's public domain because they've been dead more than 70 years. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Then the license is appropriate, you just want extra things. Please be clearer next time. I'll see if I can fish out a source for the author's death (though I doubt I'll be able to find one). Otherwise this clearly public domain image (published in 1851) will have to go. Majorly talk 21:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Here is his death date (1894). I've no idea how to add the source for a death to an image though, since I've never had to until now. Majorly talk 21:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• I've added the author's date of death (1894) to the description. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• File:William Davenport.JPG and File:Dorothy Davenport.JPG; same issue as above

• I'm not sure what is unclear about the year 1627, written on both images in the appropriate space. The artist is unknown, or at least not credited, but I am pretty sure they have been dead more than 70 years. Majorly talk 21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• That's clearly a different issue, unless the author is an unknown nosferatu, but I've changed the licence claim to suit.--Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• File:Salusbury Davenport.JPG, File:Bramall withdrawing room.jpg, File:Bramall 2.jpg, File:Bramall 19c.JPG, File:Bramall banqueting room.jpg also same issue

• See above. The author's death is known anyway. Majorly talk 15:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• These images are all clearly sourced and don't understand the objection. Majorly talk 21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• File:Bramall Hall.jpg need a verifiable way to prove author is copyright holder; at very least some sort of tangible contact info, etc.

• No reason to doubt the uploader is not the owner of the image. Majorly talk 15:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - subject to resolving the image licensing issues. A beautifully written article. Is this doubling of name intended, "Her eldest son, William Davenport Davenport"? Graham Colm ^Talk 15:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks (that comment means a lot!) Yes, it is intentional. Strange though it may sound, it's when his father took the Davenport name, and presumably, added it to the "Davenport" that was there already. Majorly talk 16:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.