Jump to content

Talk:Eaton Hall, Cheshire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Eaton Hall (Cheshire))
Good articleEaton Hall, Cheshire has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 11, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Assessment Report

[edit]
  1. If possible (given it is a private estate) new, modern photos should be considered.
  2. Sectioning of the article may help improve clarity and act as "markers" for people reading the article. Ideas for appropriate sections might include "History", "Occupancy", "Interior", "Grounds", along with the usual "External Links", "References and Citations", and so on.
  3. References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added, especially if article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

 DDStretch  (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

This page now need some serious work to be encyclopedic, there suddenly seem to be a lot of new editors on the page which is great, so I am reluctant to edit out others contributions, (apart from link to Roman Abramovich which truly - come on be serious - was nothing to do with Eaton Hall. On a more serious note:

1: " This was probably the most expensive building project ever on an English country house, costing six hundred thousand pounds" Probably - was it, or was it not?

It's suggested as a possibilty in reputable sources, (including Summerson's History of British Architecture I think) but it is not something on which there can be certainty. Most aristocratic builders were slapdash record keepers. No one knows how much Lord Burghley spent on Theobalds (indeed he probably didn't himself). Also estimates of inflation between different centuries are just that, estimates, not facts. Gillian Tipson 00:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2: "he was a duke by the time the work was finished" when , where and why, one was not made a Duke for building a house.

1874 I think. I'll check it's mentioned in his article. Gillian Tipson 00:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3: Nice pictures but arranged like that , they look like container ends in a mortuary. Giano | talk 20:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How charming you are. Gillian Tipson 00:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So are you, Sockscription. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've just read that link! It's obscene no one spends £45 a year on socks.Giano | talk 21:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Response to the above. Are we reading the same article? There is no link to Roman Abramovich, the "Roman" link is to Roman Empire. Where did you get the quotes; I cannot find "probably" anywhere in the article. The images are arranged, I think, in accordance with MOS:IMAGES. And I've made it as encyclopaedic as I can on the sources available to me (OED definition: "Of, pertaining to, or resembling an encyclopædia; that aims at embracing all branches of learning; universal in knowledge, very full of information, comprehensive.") --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Pictures: I was wondering if anyone who has the ability to visit the gardens could snap a few good photos of the new estate. The renovations/demolition (crimes) have altered it quite a bit...

Holt Castle became the source of much of the stone for Eaton Hall during the 1675 to 1683 building phase [1] by Thomas Grosvenor- If someone would like to let me know what photographs are required, I can get some pictures - but it's a private estate and I might have to write to the estate's office to gain access (Unless there's some kind of open day). --Joopercoopers 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something like this? --Joopercoopers 16:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Joopercoopers. IMO opinion there are enough images in the article; but some could certainly be improved. Details of open days are given by a link in the article (Ref 103). Incidentally your external link leads to a blank page. I've found the image to which you refer; it is of the chapel in Images of England. There is a very similar photo in the article. IMO it's better that that in IoE; but perhaps I'm biased — I took it on the last open day! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Layout: If anyone is good at reading architectural plans, Eaton Hall's before and after it's renovation in the 1989 are on the Cheshire West and Chester Council website here — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManceAnon (talk • contribs) 05:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Towards GA

[edit]

I am planning to nominate this article for GA so I should be grateful for any helpful comments, identification of glitches, etc before I expose it to GAN. Thanks.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a few relatively minor points:
    • The isbn for Newton & Lumby's book doesn't appear to be correct, and is formatted strangely.
      • There was a missing "0"; but even that didn't work properly. So I've changed it to the 13-digit ISBN (which works), and altered the other ISBNs for consitency.
    • The article usually uses "hall", but occasionally "Hall". When talking about a specific hall, I'd be inclined to capitalise Hall, but the article ought to be consistent. Same with Chapel/chapel.
      • I agree; done.
    • There's almost nothing on the interior layout of the present Hall, although I realise this may be because it's a private house.
      • This is a rather different situation from the other Cheshire country houses, like Lyme Park for example. Most are historical big houses with surrounding gardens and parks. This is a modern house, not even listed, surrounded by historical gardens containing loads of listed buildings, statues, etc. So far as I am aware the house has never been open to the public (even for a few days a year, like Knowsley Hall), and I have been unable to find anything on its internal layout. I guess it's REALLY private.
    • "Work on recasing the Dennys Hall to make it look more like a French château began in 1989." When did it finish?
      • Detail added.
    • The last paragraph of Other features contains several statements such as "the Garden House dated 1893 by Douglas and Minshull", which makes it look like Douglas and Minshull did the dating, rather than the design.
      • Changed "dated" to "of". Does this work?

Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Malleus Fatuorum. Thanks for the helpful comments and copy editing. Responses made to all points. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the chateau style chosen, if the former was unsuited to the landscape - it's pretty obvious, but it needs to be exaplained.  Giacomo  22:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to find the reason. It's pretty clear that the present duke (and/or his wife) disliked the concrete box, from the sources quoted and from this article. Perhaps the duke, or his wife, or both liked the style; perhaps they honeymooned in the Loire; who knows? Perhaps there is a reliable source explaining it somewhere but I've not been able to find it. Can anyone else? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has a mansard roof with gables, (that's a far as the chateauesque goes) beacuse such roofs were a feature of Waterhouse's work at Eaton and in London, this feature makes the "new house" harmonise more readily with the adjoining work of Waterhouse which still survives at Eaton. It has nothing at all to do with the surrounding area, vernacular Cheshire architecture or landscape. You don't need a ref to point out the blindingly obvious especialy as the lead image proves the point. I have a book somewhere describing the house (formerly) as looking like a dried up hacienda box in Argentina, (which it did) I will try and find it.  Giacomo  18:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, if it's "blindingly obvious", nothing needs to be said about it in the text of the article. I don't disagree with anything you've said. But that doesn't explain WHY the Grosvenors chose this style. I like your argument, but to use it in the article, sound though it may be, would be straying in the the realms of NOR; unless you can point me to a published peer-reviewed source for the argument that satisfies WP:VERIFY.
I have no idea what an Argentinian dried up hacienda box looks like, but I do have a photograph of the Dennys Hall (which I cannot use for copyright reasons); and I did see this version of the house myself. It was a squat, flat-roofed, white building, which I think was ugly (as many others did). I recall there was considerable adverse criticism of it at the time.
I have recently been to France and seen a number of châteaux in the Loire and the Dordogne. I don't think the present house looks like anything I saw there; I merely quote the sources.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it was not inspired by a French chateau, and whoever said it was , was talking out of their hat. The reason it has the mansard roof is because the Duke of Westminster is subject to exactly the same planning legislation an any other person. Planning control has been tightened hugely since the "hacienda box" was given planning permission. The chapel and remaing Waterhouse buildings are probably Grade I or perhaps II, the only possible planning permission given for the "rebuild" would have been so long as it was "in keeping" with the existing - it is impossible that anything other would have been considered. That's the law!  Giacomo  20:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, that given the timing, the close association between the prince of Wales, and both the Percy Thomas Partnership (see Poundbury/Trumpton) and the Duke, that the reason lies in the general debate going on at the time, after Charlie's 'monstrous carbuncle' speech and subsequent 'A Vision of Britain' (oo - a red link!) publication (1989). Giano, it's not impossible anything else could be considered. You know conservation doesn't work that way - 'sympathy' can, and frequently does, also mean 'contrast'. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very true, JC, but and I suspect the architects of proposed new Wellington Barracks will agree with me, HRH and his circle tend to prefer "sympathy" to "contrast." I wil have to find a ref, but if you look at the corps de logis of Waterhouse's Eaton Hall with the present edifice, the resemblence if only in skyline alone, it is too strong to be ignored.  Giacomo  11:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt the encasement is a poor facsimile of a French Chateau, and I'll take your word for it about a similarity with the skyline - (although I'm finding it hard to equate the previous parapets and profusion of chimneys and towers with the present poverty stricken chimneys and half-dormers). The trouble is, Eaton Estate's own website reference the 'Chateau intent' [2] and I remember it being widely reported in the local press at the time. So we can surmise this is either the original stated intent of the Duke, or a local meme which has rather stuck. I don't particularly fancy trawling through 20 year old back issues of the Chester Chronicle to find out, but I'd have thought that as the claim by the estate itself can be referenced, it is probably appropriate to leave it in our article, unless we can balance it with some sourced architectural critique about it's abysmal failure in this regard. I wonder if the AJ gave it a mention? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have access to Sayer, Michael (1993) Disintegration of a Heritage: Country Houses and their Collections, 1979-1992 Norfolk: Michael Russell (Publishing) ISBN 0859551970[3]? (Sounds like it would have been excellent for your exploding houses G) - written shortly after the completion, I wonder if it focused solely on the loss of the Waterhouse elements, or if it included critique of the encasement? Looks like Country Life had a write up of the Dennys Hall (CXLIX, 304 plan, 360. 1971). --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little material on the interior layout & furnishing of the Dennys Hall in de Figueiredo & Treuherz -- would you like me to have a go at adding it? The book seems to have been published (1988) before the recasing, so it has no information on the current layout, but I assume it's similar. The book also has a 1740 engraving of the Samwell Hall which I could scan if it would be useful. It's a lot better of the house than the existing engraving but doesn't show the earlier moated house, which might be why you're not including it. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information on the Dennys Hall would be most welcome, exterior or interior; please feel free to add what you have. We have to be careful about saying that the interior was not disturbed by the recasing, unless we can find a reference. We may have to leave it rather "in the air". Re the Samwell Hall, I think I've seen the engraving you suggest (can't find it at the moment) and I considered using it because it is, as you say, better. But (also as you say) the image I have used shows the earlier moated hall, so I used that (historic evidence being superior to artistic value?). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some material on the Dennys building, cast in the past tense as I agree the interior could well have been altered. You'll have to do the thing to link the reference, as I've no clue how that works! Let me know if you want me to scan the Samwell engraving. I suspect there's enough material to merit individual articles on all the demolished incarnations of the place. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I've done the Harvard links and one or two other tweaks. I think it would be worthwhile to scan the Samwell engraving and put it on Commons so that it's there for any future use. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded the engraving to Commons tagged Eaton Hall in case anyone wants to use it. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eaton Hall, Cheshire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: No dabs found

Linkrot: No linkrot. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Good, I made one minor copyedit.[4]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References check out, reliable sources
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
    Correctly tagged and licensed.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    This article is in good shape. I believe that it could do with the use of an infobox, e.g. {{Infobox building}}. I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, copy edit and comment. I did consider using an infobox, but which one? The article hardly mentions the present house, and there was a progression of earlier houses, each of which was more notable than the current one. This is an unusual situation for a Cheshire "stately home", in that the house hardly figures; the article is more about the gardens and the surrounding estate and estate buildings. Hence IMO, in this case, an infobox would probably be more of a hindrance than a help. I should welcome comments on this from others.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eaton Hall, Cheshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eaton Hall, Cheshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Eaton Hall, Cheshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Price Tag

[edit]

How much would it set you back to buy it? 2003:DC:F716:6F00:B062:416C:98CA:6B0D (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Total speculation but; in the unlikely event of the duke wishing to sell; and assuming that nothing more than a pocket-handkerchief of land was included; and considering its location, and its potential attraction to the footballing world; I'd say around £10-15M. This, [5] is probably your best benchmark. KJP1 (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

French chateau

[edit]

"... and given the appearance of a French château." Is there any source for that? I know a lot of French chateaux and they look nothing like this abomination of a British country house. Glamourqueen (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Pevsner. See Dennys Hall section. KJP1 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, then this is only one third of the Pevsner citation. It clearly mentions Tesco style also, which was conveniently left out while describing the appearance. Glamourqueen (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. The full quote is given, as you read. KJP1 (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the introduction. Glamourqueen (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the lead is only ever a summary of the main body, so one wouldn’t expect to find the same level of detail in both. KJP1 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about: "A new house was built but its design was not considered to be sympathetic to the local landscape so it was re-cased in the late 1980s."? Glamourqueen (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the reference for that?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a rephrasing of the already existing sentence. Glamourqueen (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eaton_Hall,_Cheshire&oldid=1255404424"