Talk:Somerhill House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Beautifully written, just added a few notes below.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Some of the sources are a little questionable- Flickr is cited, and both The Best of Tonbridge and My Brighton and Hove look very "send us an article, we'll put it up!" Finally, what makes Shaun Jeffery, author of Tonbridge Collectables, a reliable author? A lot of the old books are technically self-published, but I'm not going to challenge you on that :P
The image on Flickr is almost certainly out of copyright, despite the claim of the uploader. Of course, if a better source to back up the claim that Turner sketched Somerhill in 1809 can be found, then it should be used. The Best of Tonbridge website (aka thebestof.co.uk) is on the spam blacklist. I had to specifically request a whitelisting of this webpage so that it could be used to verify the 2006 opening. I will endeavour to find a newspaper source once the library re-opens after the holidays. Kent & Sussex Courier generally cover HoDs. As for My Brighton and Hove, I believe this to be a generally reliable source. Hassocks5489 (talk · contribs) is probably the resident expert on that area of Sussex, and I will ask him for confirmation of the provenance of that website. Re Shaun Jeffery, it is a self-published source, but it is also up-to-date, and is used to confirm that the coffin is still at Somerhill. I can provide an ancient reference that the coffin was sold and moved to Somerhill, but that wouldn't give any evidence it is still there. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On My Brighton and Hove: this is a difficult case, very much on the borderline. I was approached to write for it myself about 18 months ago (despite fully intending to, I haven't yet started: too much to do here!), and the webmaster advised me that "we do reserve the right to sub-edit the material, and do not guarantee to publish all submissions", which seems to be their standard policy. From my experience of reading entries on the site, I'm not sure that sub-editing would cover/include the removal or amendment of incorrect information; a look at the comments at the bottom of many articles shows that corrections are often posted. The article cited here is of good quality but does not give a bibliography or list of sources, which would probably put it on the "reliable" side of the line (J. Milburn, would you agree with that?). Personally, I have stripped out all MB&H references from articles I have brought to GAC, including one I have here at present. (NB. The above does not apply to pages of MB&H headed by the text "Reproduced with permission from the Encyclopaedia of Brighton by Tim Carder, 1990". These pages are verbatim extracts from the Encyclopaedia of Brighton, which its author Tim Carder has allowed to be featured on the website. These can be considered reliable and an appropriate alternative to citing the book.)

Anyway, after that rather long answer, I can say that in my collection of Brighton and Hove-related literature, I have found an entry which confirms Julian Goldsmid's date of death as 1896. I have added this to the article accordingly. (It's in Antony Dale's Fashionable Brighton, the standard reference work for 19th-century life in Brighton and the adjoining bits of Hove.) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an additional ref for the sale of the coffin and it's removal to Somerhill. Shaun Jeffery's website is now only used to confirm it is still there. Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Couple of notes below.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
I am concerned about the use of File:Tudeley church window.jpg. If the window is protected by copyright (which it will be unless we know otherwise), then we may not be able to consider it free use, unless the Church is open to the public (which I assume it is?). If it is, then the image page should be updated with the details of the artist of the window and the Commons template {{FoP-UK}} should be added so that there is no confusion.

As an active place of worship, All Saints Church, Tudeley is freely open to the public, and thus Freedom of Panorama applies. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

template {{FoP}} changed to {{FoP-UK}} at Commons. Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little more, I'm now satisfied. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

No comments made here. However, I've expanded the alt text for the infobox image, and added it to the image of the window in All Saints, Tudeley. Any other issues?

Images added of all listed buildings. Mjroots (talk)

Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Generally a lovely article on a wonderful topic; with a little more research, I've no doubt that this could make a great featured article. I'd be happy to promote the article to GA once the issues I've raised have been looked into.

"The north wing housed service rooms and the kitchen, with a parlour at the rear.[2]" This is past tense- what's there now?
- Probably now converted to classrooms, but that's OR.
  - Yeah, to be fair, I see your point- if the library's still in use as a library, perhaps note it as such? "A library was built in the south wing which is still in use today; it is the second longest room in Kent at 93 feet (28 m) long, exceeded only by the Gallery at Knole House, Sevenoaks." or something? J Milburn (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have something about the grounds? There's mention in the article of a lake, of trees and so on; perhaps a subsection of description? Also, various outbuildings- bridge? Granary? Stables?
Not sure I've added in the court case, which give some examples of past useage of the lake. The listed buildings are covered and images have been added. Images available on Geograph of the various gate lodges that aren't listed. Pretty as these cottages are, I think that the addition of those images would not improve the article, and may even detract from it. A better image of the bridge is needed (showing the bridge crossing the lake, rather than the view on the road over the bride), and I will endeavour to get one in due course.
"Margaret, Viscountess Muskerry" Presumably she is notable? Even if we don't have an article, redlinks are not something to be scared of.
- Done - redlink added
Do we have Turner's drawing/painting? It's out of copyright, it would make a great addition!
- I've not traced anything online that is copyable. The Weald's pictures seem to be uncopyable, unless anyone else knows how to do it.
  - Request made at talk:J. M. W. Turner for assistance with the referencing of the drawing and copies of both drawing and painting.
"Turner for the Woodgates, the location" semi-colon instead of comma?

Done

"Following the end of the Napoleonic Wars, and the agricultural depression which followed,[3] and the collapse of The Tonbridge Bank in 1812" turn second and to a comma?
- I've given this section a slight rewrite, let me know if it needs further tweaking.
  - Yep, that works. J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Lady Rosemary d'Avigdor-Goldsmid likened it to a hotel, except that the guests didn't pay!" Seems strange to see an exclamation mark outside of quote marks...
- Done - quotation marks added.
"The house was damaged in a storm and also be neglect and vandalism" by, presumably?
- Done - typo fixed.
"The person that bought" Odd phrase; do we not know who they are?
- Recent history is a little clouded, the period 1980-93 is the one area where further research is needed. Mjroots (talk)
  - Reworded to "The person who bought".
I wonder whether the ghost and public access sections could be merged elsewhere, unless there's more to be said? Perhaps the ghost would fit in the description section, while the details about it being open to the public could slip into the 21st century section?
- Done Ghost moved to C19th, open details moved to C21st.
Could the lead perhaps be expanded a tad?
- Done Lede expanded.

These are fantastic improvements, and I love the photos in the bottom section. One last thing, the section "It has been open as part of Heritage Open Days. Somerhill House was open in 2006,[32] In 2006, planning" could do with a quick rephrase, but I'll leave that to you. Right now, I'm happy to promote. If you do hope to take this to FAC, consider the thoughts I left on your talk page, and I'm available on my talk page if you want to bounce some ideas around, or if you want another review. Well done! J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased, but I see you'd promoted it anyway.

Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]