Talk:Penrhyn Castle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Desertarun (talk · contribs) 10:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this one. Desertarun (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• "On the eventual emancipation of slaves in the British Empire, by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, Dawkins-Pennant received significant compensation." could this be changed from the passive?

Done - I hope, never been that hot on the active/passive. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• "He, and his son and heir, George Douglas-Pennant, 2nd Baron Penrhyn, continued the development of their slate interests at Penrhyn Quarry, and of the supporting infrastructure throughout North-West Wales. Firmly opposed to trade unionism at their quarries, their tenure saw bitter strikes over union recognition and workers' rights, culminating in the Great Strike of 1900-1903, the longest dispute in British industrial history." Looks tangential to the house, ok for the body but not convinced about it in the lead

See below.

• "he massively expanded the activities", the word massively always sounds too informal to me, others may disagree

Done - replacement with "greatly"?

• "West India Committee" is mentioned in the body, but the lead writes West India Association, are these the same?

Done - yes, standardised as Committee, and found a blue link. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• "He continued the approach adopted by his second cousin: development and expansion of the Penrhyn Quarry; strong opposition to the abolition of slavery; service in Parliament; and building at Penrhyn" would look nicer in regular prose

Done - I think. Have a tried a slight re-write. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Hugh Douglas-Pennant, 4th Baron Penrhyn, who inherited in 1927", should be clearer what was inherited

Done. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• "The Trust has held custodianship of Penrhyn Castle", starts a new subsection, so should be The National Trust

Done. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• The Slate section; could the links with the house be strengthened, i'm not failing if that doesn't happen, just interested to know

See below.

• "The Blitz", is The capitalised? I'm not certain

Done - it doesn't appear to be in our main article, so I've changed it here.

• "donjon or keep", could "or keep" be added to the first instance rather than the third

Done. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Link "masonry"

Done. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• ""a strikingly inventive piece of architecture"" can this quote be attributed?

Done - to Pevsner. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• "The room is named for its ebony panelling and furniture, although much is in fact ebonised rather than real." This is a short sub section, could it be incorporated elsewhere? Not a fail if you want to leave it

Done - Yes, too short for a section, so I've wrapped it into the Drawing Room. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• "home farm" is double linked

Done - De-linked the second. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for picking this up, and for the prompt and helpful review. I hope I've addressed all but one of the concerns. The issue is Slate and Strikes, both in the lead, and in the body. What I was trying to do here, as with Slavery, was to write an article about a house that gave greater consideration to its context than I normally do. I thought Penrhyn would be a good place to try this out, firstly because it is so striking an example; "there is no building which illustrates so graphically the role which slave plantation profits played in the growth of British economic power"; and secondly because the house achieved some prominence during the NT's culture wars episode. In the time I've been writing buildings articles on here, I've come to think that we, myself included, do underplay the social/economic context in which they were created and existed. Penrhyn, and the life that its lords led there, were made possible by their profits from slaves and slate. I think there are strong, implicit, links between these two aspects and I've tried to make them a bit more explicit in the article. Very happy to discuss, of course, but I hope this makes clearer what I was trying to achieve. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now, and I'm actually in full agreement with the sentiment above. So i'll mark this off as acceptable. Desertarun (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass:

• I read and reviewed the article. I opened all of the images and checked their licenses. I checked for copyright violation in earwig. I checked the article history for edit wars. This article has passed as a Good Article. Well done! Desertarun (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Desetarun - Much appreciated, and I hope you found the article of interest. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)