Talk:Architecture of Winchester College/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ppt91 (talk · contribs) 19:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward to reviewing this article and am hoping to complete it in a timely manner (within the next five days). Ppt91 (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Thanks for the opportunity to review this interesting article Chiswick Chap. I am providing my first batch of feedback below.

That's very helpful, thank you.

Lead

Winchester College (bold face)

That would be for the parent article, Winchester College. We could try to reword the first sentence to include the phrase "...architecture of Winchester College..." but I found it clunky when I tried; standard practice if the title phrase is broken up is to avoid boldface.

Link “English” and “boarding school”

Done.

Perhaps best to say that the school’s foundation dates back to 1382 and combine the first and second sentences?

I haven't found a way to do all that without making the sentence long and complex, something we specially want to avoid at the top of the lead.

I think the language could be streamlined and my suggestion is below.

“The building has been significantly expanded since the 14th century, including major additions in the late medieval (link) and early modern periods (link). Further extensions were completed during the Victorian era (link) and at the turn of the 20th century. Among the multiple styles reflected in the architecture of Winchester college are Perpendicular Gothic, Christopher Wren, Brunelleschi, Queen Anne revival, and High Victorian Baronial (all linked as is now).”

Reworded to clarify the original foundation + additional buildings concept, with wikilinks as suggested.

Explain “listed buildings” for those unfamiliar with British architectural preservation terminology

Done.
- NEW 'language edit in lead': “supplemented by multiple episodes of building” should avoid “building” as it’s repetitive; perhaps “multiple extensions” (given “expansions” is used right after)

if “early modern” remains then it should not be capitalized per article linked

- - Tweaked.

Have you considered adding an infobox for historic site? I really think it could help both as an overview and in terms of visuals; the image, which is a great photograph of the college, feels imposing in its current layout; I realize this is an overview of the architecture, rather than the college itself, so it's tricky as far as infobox is concerned.

I suspect you have answered your own question; such a box would properly belong to the article about the college. I actually have another reason for preferring the photo on its own, which is that, when presented at this scale rather than shrunk into the confines of an infobox, it and its caption serve as a visual introduction to the article, introducing some of the original foundation buildings, and literally setting the scene.
- NEW 'Images comment': Ok re infobox decision and respect your choice; however, the image is displaying unusually large in my browser; checked on mobile, too; I looked at some of your previous GAs on architecture like Architecture of Bedford Park which also includes a map and has a pleasant visual flow according to MOS:IMAGES; this article of yours feels like a good template to follow; same re map here regarding size in Overview and medieval foundation; let me know your thoughts; also happy to seek second opinion to make sure it's not just a glitch on my end
  - I've made the map a bit smaller: it's probably just about legible like that, but it's borderline rather than good. To be clear, the size of a map or diagram is dictated by the requirement for readers to be able to make out the items - here, buildings and their names, so insisting on some general rule about absolute size or some unmeasurable concept of visual flow is not going to be a good idea. Bedford Park is a small map; those here are a great deal more detailed, so they simply need to be bigger.

Overview

Explain briefly who William of Wykeham was

Good idea, done.

I would expand the section as right now it seems too short to be on its own; I think perhaps this is a good moment to do delve more into the history and architectural layout without giving away the details you include in the following sections; perhaps you could say a few words about its current function, given you provide information about contemporary preservation listings

Good idea, done.

the images are too large and dominate the section without sufficient explanation; my recommendation would be to keep the contemporary map, as you discuss the changes since the medieval period in the next section, and make it smaller

The expansion of the section per the above item probably fixes the first part of this. I've kept the contemporary map here as a visual overview of the article, and moved the mostly-medieval plan to the next section where it, er, mostly fits. On the scale, the point of having a sketch map and an architectural plan is to enable the reader to consult these while reading, without having to print them out or switch between Wikipedia and Commons repeatedly; the article would be very difficult to grasp without such graphical assistance. For this purpose the images need to be large enough to be readable. They seem to work well both on a large screen and on a mobile, by the way.

NEW: reads much better and works well; should add more inline citations

- include inline citation after New College, Oxford
  - Done.
- should commoners be linked to Commoner_(academia)?
  - It seems to carry approximately the same meaning, so done, even though it's a Winchester College notion specifically.
- 17th-century; 19th-century and so on hyphenated since referring to specific buildings
  - Done.
- “several” or “multiple” instead of “many”?
  - Done one, the other is right as it is.

More to follow on “the medieval foundation” hopefully today

Some general comments about following sections

I think you should include date ranges in section headings, as it would be very helpful to know your periodization especially when including terms like “early modern” which tend to be ambiguous for casual readers (and even historians, for that matter)

I'm reluctant to do that, as we want the section headings to be readable at a glance, short, and approachable, which a mass of parenthetical date ranges is not. Since the next section after Early Modern is "Victorian", an era sharply defined by Queen Victoria's reign, and since as it happens there was a period of over a century without buildings, an exact date for the end of Early Modern is not required (if indeed an uncontroversial date could be provided). Readers who want dates will find them in the text.

Have you considered changing the heading to “History” and then including each one as a subheading? This is just a suggestion and if you prefer to keep it as is, that’s fine, as long as the periods are specified

I had considered it, yes. I decided against it as the chapter would encompass basically the whole text; and since the article is on architecture, it makes sense for the four main sections simply to be chapters of architectural history.

Looking forward to closely reading the rest of the article. I will be providing more comments on the remaining sections soon. Please let me know if you have any questions in the meantime Ppt91 (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.

Ok, though in this case, I would not capitalize "early modern" per my comment above -- more to follow hopefully today! Ppt91 (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

The medieval foundation

“in” to “using”?

Done.

identify individuals briefly: Pevsner architectural historian, Repton architect, Baker architect etc.

Glossed.

I would remove “the then new”

Done.

Link “knapped”

Done.

Link “stables,” “brewhouse,” and “slaughterhouse”

Done.

Link “fan-vaulted ceiling”

Done.

Link “carpenter”

Done.

“known for its stained glass” – can we add a source here?

The existing sources make it clear that that is true.

Link “saint”

Done.

Link “glazier”

Done.

The last paragraph needs a couple more inline citations, ideally after “Thomas Glazier, survives.” and “glass was scattered and destroyed.”

Done.

Should W. D. Caröe stay here or be moved to the modern section? (this is entirely up to you; it struck me because of the dates)

Yes, could be either. I think it fits best here really.

General content comments for this section: your description of the architecture is very methodical and precise--and it is clear you are very comfortable with the scholarship--though feels at times a bit dry. I wonder if more could be added in terms of architectural history to illuminate the historical/practical importance of these additions.

for example, you mention Perpendicular Gothic style, which despite being linked will be unfamiliar to someone who isn’t well versed in medieval European architecture; likewise, you make some historically important observations like noting that the Winchester College and Oxford were among the first "layouts planned on a large scale" or that the lierne vaults was described as "out-of-the-ordinary"--which left me wanting to learn more given the overall depth of the article

Added some glosses. We are constrained as an encyclopedia to reporting facts and quoting attributed opinions, both of which are provided here: and some of Pevsner's views in particular are certainly quite spicy. If I come across anything usable I'll add it; for now, I'm confident the article covers "the main points".

Also, do you think more can be said about Clark? When did he buy it? Did his intervention mattered here in view of his own interest in Ruskin’s theories of conservation as opposed to restoration?

He was at the school as a boy (as is mentioned), and I think was both shocked at the loss of the glass and personally interested in seeing it back at the school; I've not heard this had anything to do with Ruskin. Not sure we can write any of this in the article, however.

I am by no means suggesting original research—however, since you mentioned and linked these and other concepts and/or people, greater detail would make for an engaging addition. I think a few more sentences here and there, delving into how these additions transformed the space (or whatever else you think is relevant) would be very helpful.

Have added at least a few glosses to be going along with.

Chiswick Chap Looking forward to reading the rest! Ppt91 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These glosses are what I had in mind. They clarify some points to people unfamiliar with the topic without going beyond GA expectations. Perhaps I am unintentionally blurring the lines a bit between GA and FA criteria due to the depth of the article and the extent of your other contributions more broadly. More to follow. Ppt91 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval to early modern

Link “red brick”

Done, if you feel that's not a common term.

Link “modillions”

Done.

Link “pediment”

Done.

Link “warden” (unless I missed it earlier)

Glossed.

Link “gabels”

Done.

Link “buttresses”

Done.

Change to: "The Warden’s Lodgings is constructed largely of red brick and its oldest parts date back to 1597." or another way to break it up and edit for language clarity

Done.

Change “dated to” to “made” (per above)

That doesn't work. "dated to" means "the men who know about such things have assessed the structure and decided its date must be..."

Link “chimneypiece” (unless it’s not the same as article on fireplace mantel?)

Done.

Content comments: I think that small additions or "glosses" as you aptly described them could be made to solidify the “main points” of the article:

I might be misunderstanding, but was Warden Nicholas (mentioned at the end of the section) responsible for the 1692 reworking? Or did I miss something earlier and/or is that a pure coincidence as far as the statue is concerned? Either way, I would add a few words to explain this since and mention who C.G. Cibber was to break it up a bit and make clearer

He was. Glossed Cibber. Edited a little.

Wren style briefly explained in the sentence

Glossed.

Pevsner: your earlier short edit regarding Pevsner in the previous section was great, so something along those lines

Not sure there's much more to say here, as his comment was very simple.

the relevance of Pool of Bethesda briefly explained, at the very least, I think, it being from the New Testament and describing Jesus’s miracle of healing (or however you think it should be phrased)

There's already a wikilink and a gloss "after the biblical Pool of Bethesda, a place of healing", which I should have thought was sufficient.

last part depending on how you edit the first paragraph and whether another clarification is relevant here

Probably enough already...

Ok, great Ppt91 (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow Ppt91 (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian

link to Victorian is made far up in the lead section and it might not be immediately obvious to all readers. Perhaps a very brief inclusion in the opening paragraph like: “greatly extended during the Victorian Era (1839-1901)” or “during Queen Victoria’s reign (1839-1901)”

Done.

inline citations, “teachers.” and “George Ridding.” seem missing?

Ref covers the paragraph.

G.S. Repton is not identified

Done.

I would move the Headmaster’s House up to follow chronologically and for better flow (your choice if you think current placement is more consistent with your description)

Changed the paragraphing to group the HH with 'Just to the south of the HH are...'

Knapping can be unliked

Done.

I would remove Butterfield brackets and identify him as “Gothic Revival architect” (or whatever you think fits) for clarity since you mention and link Keble College but do not include style

Done.

Seems that Butterfield needs a footnote given the next inline citation is for Pevsner quote?

Done.

William White needs to be identified as British architect for consistency

Glossed.

"an all too prominent feature" is this meant in purely visual sense? Seems like an interesting observation, unsure if much else can be added about it though

The remark clearly shows that Sabben-Clare thought the combination of enormous, in-your-face, and mock-baronial utterly hideous, in the exact manner of P. G. Wodehouse describing an exuberantly excrescent nouveau riche country seat: something that we can safely record on this talk page!

More to follow. Ppt91 (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern

Prose suggestion: “Completed in 1904 and consisting of thirteen bays in red brick dressed with white Portland stone, it is in what the college calls Queen Anne revival style. The building remains in its original use.”

Noted.

Prose suggestion: “Another older war memorial in the school is the entry chamber to the Chapel. Known as “Crimea” and named after the Crimean War of 1853-1956, it bears the names of Wykehamists who died at the siege of Sebastopol.”

Tweaked.

Perhaps replace “magnificent” with “intricate” given disastrous is used in the same sentence to avoid puffery?

Not really, but done.
- if this affects the meaning, then by all means revert; was a suggestion

Link “sports field”

Done, but this is exactly the sort of thing that editors pounce upon as a term in common use.

Link “tennis courts” (I believe only squash was linked earlier?)

Ditto.
- as above, feel free to unlink; I was going by "squash courts" having been linked earlier

Also, I realized the maps in the first two sections are still in gallery mode despite it being two separate images--I think switching them to regular images on the right hand side could help with visual clarity; again, happy to seek second opinion here as my only intention is to ensure correct MOS:IMAGELOC

Hm. We'll try it now.
- IMO looks better

Excited to see this all come together and thanks for the opportunity to review this. I think the article is in really good shape in terms of content. Other than the placement issue above, I want to take one more look at sources and the rest of the image rights to make sure all is in order. Ppt91 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done to date.

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Image rights and sources look good. The nominator indicated they would like to retain current size of images in lead and Overview sections for clarity, especially in regard to the two maps; the reviewer respects the decision. Article is passed. Ppt91 (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]