Talk:Rode Hall/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Edwininlondon (talk · contribs) 12:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Edwininlondon

Hi, I will have a good look at this. Just to get you started, the picture at the top strikes me as sub-optimal. Mostly a tree. Anything better available? And will you be ok if I make minor language tweaks directly in the article, rather than trying to describe them? More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full review: Overall I think the article is good, although the prose is questionable at times. With a bit of tweaking it will pass on all 6 criteria.

I got a bit confused by the prose about the parts of the building. How about this as the start?

Rode Hall is a Grade II* listed Georgian country house in the parish of Odd Rode, Cheshire, England. The present building, which replaced an earlier timber-framed house, consists of two distinct parts, the older built c.1700, the later in 1752. The older part was built by Randle Wilbraham and the later part completed by Randle Wilbraham III. Their descendants, the Baker Wilbraham baronets, still own and live in the house.

Done

I am not sure about who built the older part. The lead says "by Randle" but the History section says "for Randle". I don't have access to the source.

"A number of" appears 8 times in this article, way too many. It appears twice in the second paragraph. combining that with a few other style improvements, how about this for a 2nd paragraph?

Both the exterior and interior of Rode Hall have been altered multiples times, including work by Thomas Farnolls Pritchard and Lewis Wyatt, resulting in an irregular and complex layout. The house has large collections of period paintings, furniture and porcelain, including pieces by Chelsea, Bow and Royal Worcester.

Done

I am not too familiar with the Grade II system. Am I right that there are various schemes, one for parks, one for buildings? In the last paragraph of the lead you have Grade II and grade II, are these indeed spelled differently by different schemes?

Done

Last paragraph lead: again we have "a number of"

Done

The History section starts Wilbraham-centric, but I think it would be better if it starts estate centric. Something like "The first recorded owner of the Rode Estate is Randle Rode." Is nothing else known of him or his family or the estate?

'As it stands today the Hall consists of two houses, formerly separate, and now joined together' May I suggest 'Rode Hall consists of two houses, formerly separate, but later joined together.'

Done

'The house has been updated' to be more clear I'd suggest 'The Hall has been updated'.

Done

'a bay was constructed to join the two distinct parts of the house' For clarity sake it seems to me it's better to keep saying two houses that together make the Hall. So it would become 'a bay was constructed to join the two houses.'

Done

1926? The source says it was 1927 when Darcy Braddell added an entrance portico to the mid C18 portion

Done

'Grade II* buildings are particularly important buildings of more than special interest; 5.5% of listed buildings are Grade II*'. Not sure if this warrants quotation marks, seems too factual to me. Rephrasing a bit allows you to change it a bit, and say for instance 'only 5.5%'

Done

Exterior: 'Rode Hall is made up of two distinct parts:' This bit is a repetition of what was said in History. May I suggest to start this section with 'The older part of the Hall consists of seven bays, over two floors. There are projecting bays at ...'

Done

Make sure you stay consistent in referring to the hall in the whole article, as it is now sometimes lowercase, sometimes uppercase. I think uppercase reads better.

Done

'To the left of the original ' probably better to use west or east

Done

An ideal addition would be an illustration of the houses, how they are connected. Maybe with surroundings, like on the official website even. Anything in the public domain?

This page talks about plans for an overhaul: http://www.makowerarchitects.com/rode-hall.html Some reference somewhere would be good, maybe just a footnote if these plans are just plans. Maybe more if work has started.

'This octagonal room at one point served as the entrance to the Hall, until being relocated by Randle Wilbraham III' I read this as if the octagonal room was relocated. How about 'Originally, an entrance into the Hall was located in this octagonal room, until Randle Wilbraham III relocated it.'

Done

Is anything known about the interior of the oldest part?

Is there an image you can add for the Interior section?

'The dining room was designed by Lewis Wyatt in about 1808, who completed a number of alterations to the house. Originally the library, Wyatt extended the room ' This could flow better by moving the 'alterations' bit further down. So 'The dining room, originally the library, was designed by Lewis Wyatt in about 1808. Wyatt extended the room ...' Then insert the 'alterations' bit before 'Wyatt's works at Rode Hall'

Done

'including the 40-acre (16 ha) Rode Pool' What is the size of smaller lake? Does it have a name?

There are a couple of references to the lakes that are unclear, referring to the larger lake. Is this Rode Pool or not?

Quotes around 'traditional and exotic varieties [of vegetables], and fruit bushes' are unnecessary. Now they only make the reader wonder who said it.

Done

Grade II listing means that a building. Does this need to be explained again? Is it different from what is in the History section?

Ice House --> Is that a proper name? If not, no capitals, and spelling in lead is different.

Done

'the upper section being added at a later date' I would drop being

Done

In this Structures section, the paragraph break seems random. Why between obelisk and stable? Maybe group the 4 structures as 2 in garden, paragraph break, 2 elsewhere on grounds.

Done

'Mow Cop, land previously belonging to the estate' --> I think in the History section there should have been something about the estate having been bigger in the past. And was the whole of Mow Cop part of the estate?

Hiorne brothers, the architects who worked on the 1752 improvements' --> these brothers should be mentioned in exterior section

'Constructed to improve the view across the valley from the house, the family often used it' May I suggest:

It was constructed to improve the view across the valley from the Hall. The family often used it as a summer house and for picnics.

Done

Present day section could flow better. How about this:

Rode Hall is still owned and occupied by the Wilbrahams, currently by the 8th Baronet, Sir Richard Baker Wilbraham, and his wife, Lady Anne Baker Wilbraham. The Hall and gardens are open to the public from April to September, for an entrance fee. The tearooms, located in the 1752 section of the Hall, use and sell the produce from the kitchen garden. Every month a farmers' market is held next to the kitchen garden.

Done

references: Would you mind if I clean up the references a bit? I prefer the style used on for instance today's feature article, The Royal Opera. For isntance, de Figueiredo, Peter; Treuherz, Julian (1988), is listed twice, slightly differently. And is 'Philimpor'e really spelled right?

Illustrations: Is there anything available that better shows off Rode Hall? The images on the official website bring the Hall so much better to life than what is in this article.With so much talk about the 2 houses, would be good to see both of them. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Edwininlondon, it's been nearly three weeks since we interacted on Sotakeit's talk page, and you've made all of the fixes to date, though none for a couple of weeks. At this point, seven weeks after Sotakeit's most recent edit (and approaching five months since the edit prior to that), it's probably time to consider closing the nomination as unsuccessful, unless you wish to complete fixing the article, including researching and filling in the omissions you've noted. Once Sotakeit returns and makes the rest of the fixes you've requested, it can always be renominated. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me email the owners of the Hall once more for final research, when no reply by end of weekend, I shall close the nomination. Thanks for reminding me. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon, did you get a reply like you hoped for? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be done?

I'll see what I can do to bring the article to meet GA criteria. I have cleaned up the lead image, as I noted that was an unresolved issue. What else needs doing? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All that is left is

I am not sure about who built the older part. The lead says "by Randle" but the History section says "for Randle". I don't have access to the source. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied up the lead a bit to clarify the early history of the building. Does that help? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The History section starts Wilbraham-centric, but I think it would be better if it starts estate centric. Something like "The first recorded owner of the Rode Estate is Randle Rode." Is nothing else known of him or his family or the estate? Edwininlondon (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a little bit about the Rode family in the lead, and to the first sentence of the History section. There doesn't seem to be much information about them. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page talks about plans for an overhaul: http://www.makowerarchitects.com/rode-hall.html Some reference somewhere would be good, maybe just a footnote if these plans are just plans. Maybe more if work has started.Edwininlondon (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything about that Glazed Court other than what the architects are saying, which is in terms of a planned project. It certainly looks like something to keep in mind, but I'm personally hesitant to say anything in the article at this stage, as the project may not happen, and our only source appears to be the architects themselves. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of references to the lakes that are unclear, referring to the larger lake. Is this Rode Pool or not? Edwininlondon (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've hopefully clarified that from the source provided. Of was it something else you were unsure about? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Mow Cop, land previously belonging to the estate' --> I think in the History section there should have been something about the estate having been bigger in the past. And was the whole of Mow Cop part of the estate? Edwininlondon (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found references that say the tower or building on Mow Cop was owned by the family, and other such wording, but nothing so detailed as to indicate when it became part of the estate, how much was part of the estate, and when it ceased to be part of the estate. The "Broad coverage" aspect of the GA criteria is the one that is perhaps most open to variable interpretation and can cause most friction between reviewers and nominators. What I tend to keep in mind is that Broad coverage is not as demanding as the Comprehensive of the FA criteria. In this case, the information may just be available in private records in the family, and may not be part of the public record. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiorne brothers, the architects who worked on the 1752 improvements' --> these brothers should be mentioned in exterior section Edwininlondon (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be mentioned in the current version of the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed the estate, for extra images and clarification, but no reply. A bit of research is required to resolve some, or else may rewrite of the text in question. I can reformat the references into Harvard style. Thanks for helping out. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cite format is a matter of personal taste; having the cites in one format or another is not a GA or FA requirement, and changing the format style is explicitly frowned upon per WP:CITEVAR, so the cite format is best left as it is, especially as it is the most popular and useful format on Wikipedia. We don't want to set up a cite war! ;-) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the images and unforced the size per image guidelines. There are already four images in the article, which is sufficient for the size of the article. The images are relevant, appropriately tagged, and have suitable captions, so that part of the GA criteria is fine as far as I can see. For future development an editorial discussion to swap one or other of the exterior images for an interior image could be held, and that would appropriate, though not essential. Images of the interior of buildings is not always possible. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little bit about the house in Pevsner's Cheshire, but it's mainly speculation, with few hard facts. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone though the list above, and done what I could. Do you feel the article now meets the criteria, or are there still areas you are concerned about? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]