Wikipedia:Peer review/Bramshill House/archive2

Bramshill House

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Looking at some of the other FAs on country houses I think with a bit of work Bramshill House could be brought up to FA status. It's an important Jacobean mansion and quite a prominent country house historically. It's been as well researched as possible to the point that Yngvadottir even got hold of some specialist material I believe. I'd be very grateful for some wide input on this before taking to FAC. Thanks, ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• Lead
  • "was sold to heritage property developers City & Country" – you know my aversion to the false title: you need a "the" before "heritage" for this to be good English. Same applies at mention of the company in the main text.

Agreed, yup, that was added fairly recently by somebody else once it was sold.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Original house
  • Does ref 5 cover all the statements in the three sentences preceding it?

I think so, yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• • "During the reign of King Charles I" – but earlier we have "the 14-year-old Edward III" with no "King" – which I think is preferable.

I think we can do without "King" in all instances.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Exterior
  • "attributed to architect John Thorpe" – another false title

Done.

• Interior
  • "noted for its "rich period decoration"." – if worth putting in quotes it's worth attributing in the text

Paraphrased instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• • "Sir William applied" – MOS:SURNAME – "Cope applied"

Done.

• • "The billiard room has a secret door" – not much of a secret, if we disclose it here.

Hidden OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Legends
  • "which had been proven" – "proven" is fine in Scottish and American usage, but "proved" is better in English.

Done (you learn something new every day :-) )

• Bibliography
  • Not clear what your policy is on using the "authorlink" field. Lord Ribblesdale, Henry Tanner and Miles Tripp are not linked but Pevsner, Lees-Milne et al are.

I believe it's authors who have their own article. Perhaps some of the others do which I've missed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. The article is clear, thorough and well documented. Definitely FAC potential, I'd say. – Tim riley talk 09:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Tim for the quick response!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Minor comments from Peter I. Vardy

Thank you for asking me to have a look at this article. I do not see myself as a reviewer, and I am certainly no copy editor. The article looks good, comprehensive, and well-written. Some minor points:

• I should like Registered Historic Park to be linked in the lead.

Done, and to body as well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• There is a stub about Thomas Foxley (c. 1305–60), and this could be linked.

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am not sure about the "rules" for alt text. Should this be added to images at FA level?

Probably, but I've never seen the point in alt text to be honest! What am I missing?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Good luck. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Peter♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Nicely put together article covering what I would expect it to. I made a few MoS tweaks here and there - feel free to rv if you disagree. A couple of other comments for you to consider:

Exterior

• "the art connoisseur Anthony Blunt": perhaps art historian is more accurate?

Refs

• FNs 49, 66 & 85 need to be tweaked to show 139–39, not 139–9

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks SchroCat. Anything else?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc

I think that the work is good and it can be bettered to Featured Article if some recifications would be done soon.

• A better description of the Architecture of the building is required. For example, type of coloration used in painting...
• The History Section lacks from citing the reasons and the circumstances of building the Bramshill House like the Funding of the first building process and the team working on building it.

Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Csisc but I'm not sure such details exist.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt

Very engaging and well written. A few quibbles.

• "reputed to haunt the house is allegedly" I think one or the other between "reputed" and "allegedly" will do.

good point!

• "held by Hugh de Port,[3] whose family subsequently held" held ... held. Is there a synonym?

Reworded to "in possession of it"

• "who also held lands in Bray" is this relevant?

Probably not!

• "it may have been a copy of William of Wykeham's work there" the reader may want slightly more of a hint as to which was the original.

Not sure what you're getting at here Wehwalt?

• " lists the library as having 250 books and a collection of mathematical instruments, and revealed that the maids' chamber" so present or past tense?

past tense, changed.

• "It has been described as a "magnificent" "large Renaissance mansion",[44] and labelled one of the "glories of English architecture" by the art historian Anthony Blunt and the architectural historian James Lees-Milne.[45]" unless the reader's particularly bright, he may not realise that those from before the footnote are from one, and the others from the second.

Exceptionally good point, altered it.

• " German builders, replacing the Italian artisans who left England following the accession of Elizabeth I" you might want to add a "for religious reasons" or whatever it was.

I'm not sure what the reason was, can you find a source to support a reason why they left? Probably religious but it would be OR unless I can find a source to support it.

• "but it is light enough to be Ionic" I think, "but are light enough to be Ionic"

Yup, done.

• "Munich Gallery" linkable?

I couldn't find it at the time, I'll look again.

• "Two of the bedrooms, the two "White Rooms", were originally connected to what was called the Flower-de-luce Room, but the door was boarded up." Door or doors?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You'd think it would indeed be two, perhaps Yngvadottir can clarify.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt, much appreciated, will address tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Some excellent points here, very much appreciated!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

A well-researched article, pleasingly illustrated. With some further attention it should do well at FAC. I apologise if some of these points have already been picked up by earlier reviewers:

• Lead

• "until recently" needs to be made time-specific

Changed to later, but if you want me to mention a date I'll do that.

• Is there any indication as to City & Country's plans for the property?

At the moment I don't think so, unless I'm, mistaken?

• Location

• Bramshill should be linked (first mention after lead)

Done.

• "approximately at the centre of" → "at the approximate centre of"?

Done.

• I'm not quite sure what an "inner lane" is – is it a private road?

Yes, a private road inside the grounds near the building. I've reworded, thanks.

• History: Original house

• I think "Bromeselle" is close enough to "Bramshill" to drop the parenthetical explanation in the first line, and the intermediate spelling.

I'm not sure as Bromeselle and Bromshyll have been mentioned in sources from that period I believe so it's probably better to mention both spellings.

• New manor house

• In the first line, why "reportedly"? What is the element of doubt?

Removed.

• I'd advise some reordering of the first paragraph, so that it begins: "In March 1605,[14] Edward la Zouche, 11th Baron Zouche, a favourite of King James I,[12] bought the property from Sir Stephen Thornhurst..." and then mention that it was intended for Prince Henry.

Quite.

• It's odd that Shaw describes the new house as a "specimen of Elizabethan architecture", bearing in mind that Queen Elizabeth died some years before building began. You call it Jacobean in the lead, which seems the correct description. (but I realise you can't alter what Shaw said)

Yes, do you think it would be best to remove it to avoid this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I always like to finger the "experts" when they get things wrong, so I wouldn't remove it – I'd add a [sic] after "Elizabethan", to mark the error. Brianboulton (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Is there a more precise date for the fire, rather than "during the reign of Charles I", and is there any information as to the cause of the fire?

Unfortunately no.

• Generous of Parliament to offer Wellington somebody else's house, but I suppose that's how it went!

• Sporting events

• The information relating to the performances of Ward and Lillywhite are unnecessary detail and I suggest should be deleted. Cricket was a very different game 200 years ago (unprepared pitches, no overarm bowling, etc), and these "records" have no relevance to the modern game.

It is a bit of padding I suppose, so I've removed.

• Modern times

• "In 1935, the house passed from the Cope family to Ronald Nall-Cain" – would it be more precise to say "In 1935, the house was purchased from the Cope family by Ronald Nall-Cain..." etc?

Yes, that would sound better, I've reworded.

• Re the motto, mentioning the Police College at this point is premature, as it doesn't enter the story until later. I would save this snippet of information until the next paragraph.

OK, I've moved down.

• You should link "Grade I listed" as first mention in main text

There's no article on Grade I itself though, is Listed building worth linking at all even in the lede?

• As the subject of the article is "Bramshill House", do we need to know details of the modern buildings built in the grounds during the Police College era? These are quite separate structures from the house itself.

I've moved down the info on the building to the architecture section. The article is about the house and estate so it's really IMO to mention some of those new buildings, but you're right that they didn't belong in history.

• "In July 2013 the Home Office placed it on the market..." – clarify that "it" refers to the whole estate.

Done.

• Architecture: exterior

• Surely the words "large Renaissance mansion" don't require quotes – this is bald fact. Also, why "has been described as", when later in the sentence there are specific ascriptions of wordings to Blunt and Lee-Milne?

Removed and reworded.

• Why is the opinion of Hugh Lucas-Tooth worth mentioning? He was a minor Conservative politician, a lawyer, with as far as I know no architectural credentials.

Removed.

• "Much of the work, most notably the entrance, was executed by German builders, replacing the Italian artisans who left England following the accession of Elizabeth I." There is confusion here, arising from mixing the specific and the general. The Germans who built the entrance were not themselves replacements for the departed Italian artisans, but were part of a general body of Germans which, during the 50 years since Elizabeth's accession, had replaced the earlierItalian artisans. The sentence needs rewriting to reflect this.

@Brianboulton: Can you suggest an alternative wording?

How about this: "Much of the work, most notably the entrance, was executed by German builders, part of the workforce which replaced the Italian artisans who had left England following the accession of Elizabeth I in 1558." Brianboulton (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's better, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Are the primary façade and the southern façade the same thing?

In brackets to clarify.

• Vaulted cellars are surely, by definition, not part of the exterior of the building?

Source says "2 storeys to north and east, 3 to the south and 3 above

cellars to the west, all arranged below a single roof line."

• "The south façade ... measures 193 feet (59 m) in height to the top of the parapet. It is three storeys high..." Even allowing for the parapet, that's over 60 feet per storey, which seems improbable. Also, it means that the height of the building considerably exceeds its length (140 feet), which is not apparent from the various images. I suggest you check out the height statistics.

Removed the height until it can be doubly cited.

On reflection, the height figure originally given is palpably wrong: 193 feet is two-and-a-half times the height of Buckingham Palace, and 30 feet higher than Nelson's Column! As Mr McEnroe put it, you cannot be serious. I'm inclined to think that the 59 metres is actually the height in feet, and that this has been mistranscribed somewhere. That would be the correct scale for an imposing three-storey building. But there must be a source somewhere that will resolve the issue. Brianboulton (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton, Yes, it's one of those obvious errors which often need a lot of pairs of eyes scrutinizing it before you really realise, many pairs of experienced have looked at this over the past year or two!! Looking at the photograph, yeah it does look about 60 ft, 193 ft is certainly ridiculous, I can almost see the page of the source with 193 cited though! Was it the Hampshire or Essex police website or something? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• "The triglyphs and ornamented metopes, together with the simple capitals of the columns, indicate the Doric order, but are light enough to be Ionic". Far too technical for the general reader, I fear.

I disagree on that one, they're important architectural details and the terms are linked for anybody who wants to check what they are.

• A note on the indeterminate nature of the north side statue would be useful.

@Brianboulton: Can you give an example of what you're looking for here?

I'd like to know why it's not possible to say if the statue is of Lord Zouche or King James. I'd have thought the king's likeness was well enough established to identify him; have any sources commented on this conundrum? Brianboulton (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not that I could find, two different sources say either one ad as far as I can see there's no closeup image to verify either one. You'd imagine King James would be correct, I think we should probably go with that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Interior

• Do we understand that the "rejected" tapestries are in the house while the "preferred" set is not? Or are both there?

@Brianboulton:, I don't follow what you mean here.

The text reads: "These tapestries were initially made for Dudley Carleton, 1st Viscount Dorchester, Zouche's brother, possibly in exchange for a collection of marbles in Carleton's possession. Carleton, in the end, preferred another set of tapestries; how the first set came to Bramshill is not known." From that, it appears that Carelton was offered some tapestries in exchange for his marbles; he actually preferred a different set of tapestries from those he was offered, but seemingly ended up with the first set anyway. So did he get the others? It's not worth your spending a moment of time on this light-hearted query. Brianboulton (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I see. It doesn't say unfortunately, would you rather I remove the part about the marbles and him changing his mind?

Your call, but if it wre up to me I'd delete from "possibly in exchange for..." Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite agreed, I've reworded that now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• "from that era" in the last line of first para needs clarifying

Removed.

• I assume that the measurement of 2 feet 6 inches refers to the depth of the entablature

Yup, added.

• "Across from this is what was the dining room..." – reads clumsily. Perhaps "Across from this is the former dining room..."

Reworded as suggested.

• "The distribution of the members is regular..." – what does this mean?

The columns are evenly distributed, would you prefer to state columns rather than members to avoid confusion to those not up on architectural terminology?

• Grounds and garden

• I got rather muddled by the various acreages etc in the first paragraph. Maybe it's just me, but I found the various "includings" and "includeds" confusing, leaving me wondering what exactly was part of what. I understand that the 262 acres of grounds that surround are part of a larger historic park, but I can't follow exactly what is within the 262 acres. Do they include "Peatmoor Copse", "Bramshill Forest", the formal gardens? Are the house and grounds enclosed by walls, fences etc, to form a distinct entity within the Registered Historic Park? Does the term "Bramshill Park", used here for the first time, refer to the house and its grounds, or to the larger park?

Drmies might respond to that one, I think he added much of the info on the grounds.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Re the careless archbishop: the shooting took place in 1621, in the reign of James I, so unless he made his comment much later, Charles was not Charles I at the time. And what did he mean by this gnomic utterance – I can't work it out?

Yes, exceptionally good points, it would have been Charles II and the incoherent rambling not really understandable so removed.

• The only Sir John Cope mention thus far is the one who bought the property in 1699; Charles Kingsley was born in 1819, so they cannot have been friends. You need to clarify that this was a later Sir John, presumably the fervent foxhunter mentioned further on.

I've removed that part. The John mentioned would have been the foxhunter, yes, so I've mentioned their connection later on.

• "through a gateway formed by two Grade II listed early 19th-century lodges forming an arched gateway" – the sentence turns round on itself. Suggest "...through an arched gateway formed by two Grade II listed early 19th-century lodges"

Yes, much better.

• Pipelink Reading

Done.

• I don't think it's necessary to give the list categories of all the subsidiary structures you mention. This makes reading difficult.

I don't think removing them would help the article from a comprehension point of view so I'd not be happy doing that, but it might be possible to flesh some of those mentioned out a bit to avoid it sounding too listy. Drmies?

• Final sentence - you need to explain the significance, in planning terms, of the 2002 transfer. What is meant by a "non-departmental body"?

Can Drmies and Yngvadottir respond to that one?

I don't know, Ernst--was it my addition? Sorry I've been absent here; I have only so much time to spend on Wikipedia these days. Brian, thank you for your comments--and thanks to the others as well (I saw Wehwalt, for instance). Drmies (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best Brian to just ignore the police buildings as you said earlier on after all?? If there's nothing to expand it I think it's best to leave it out.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That is certainly what I would do. The police buildings are of no historical or architectural interest; other than to briefly observe their existence I would leave them out of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done so, you've convinced me on that one!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Legends

• "Reputedly" and "purportedly" in the same sentence?

We're trying to distance ourselves from supporting the existence of ghosts ;-) Yes, I've removed one.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou BB for giving this a good look, much appreciated. Some great points here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's largely covered now Brianboulton, thanks again for your tremendous review of this. If somebody could find the actual height of the house that would be good! I will be heading to FAC shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)