Talk:Architecture of Chiswick House

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Architecture of Chiswick House article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed, throughout

This article has languished, apparently since 2013, with wholly inadequate use of citations. Currently 22 out of 34 main text paragraphs (64%) are wholly uncited, and many of the rest are cited in the most fragmentary manner with much of the material in the article - certainly over 75% of the main text - not covered at all. Indeed, many of the existing sources (17 out of 36, almost 50%) are cited only in the lead, where (per MoS), they do not belong, certainly not at the expense of citations in the main text. Given the technical nature of the topic, some expertise is required, or we could merge such of the material as can be saved back to Chiswick House. It was split from there in 2013, shortly after the article was tagged as "very long", suggesting that the reason for the split was simply to trim that article, this one being basically a dustbin. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - there are certainly issues. Looking at the history, I think it was mostly written by User:Chivalrick1, a user who hasn’t edited for 5 years. They were clearly very knowledgeable, being - I think - the English Heritage House Manager at Chiswick for some years. But they wrote at a time when the requirement for sourcing was considerably “looser” than it now is. Then you have the sheer scale of Chiswick. It must be one of the most written-about buildings in England, if not the world. You could easily run three full-length articles out of the material: The House and its History; the Architecture; and the Gardens, which are festooned with Grade I structures. It brings to mind Stowe. The problem is knowing where to start! KJP1 (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1: In other words, it was written from an editor's personal knowledge, WP:OR, on a topic where plentiful sources were and remain available. Where to start? We redirect this to Chiswick House, and you or other editors cite and add cited materials to that article, as they please. That article of course already provides quite a lot of detail on the architecture, and there's no good reason to have two articles on that subject. The "very long" tagging was mistaken; the article was under 100k long, and its problem was lack of citations, not length. I don't intend to merge uncited materials back there, and there is now quite a lot of overlap between the two articles (not least in the ridiculously long lead of this Architecture page, which does not summarize the article body, but introduces 14 "new" refs not used in the article body!), but it may be possible to rescue some of the cited parts of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]