Talk:Ston Easton Park/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dylan620 (talk · contribs) 17:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a nice little article; unless real life intervenes to a sufficient degree, I should have the review done within the next few days. Regards, Dylan620 's public alt ^{(I'm all ears)} 17:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

I am having a bit of trouble hunting down online copies/screenshots/scans of the some of the books listed in the bibliography; specifically, those by Cooke, Dunning, Priest, and Reid (the information re. the Hippisley arms cited to Pirie-Gordon's book, I was able to verify by searching other sources online). Would you happen to know if there is any way to access online the four books that I am having difficulty with? I am wondering if I missed something during my initial search.

Cooke, Dunning, and Reid - I have hard copy (dead tree) versions of these. I'm not aware of any online versions.— Rod ^talk 17:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not too much of a burden, could you please e-mail me screenshots or scans of the most article-relevant pages from the books in question? Specifically, I am asking for pages 135 and 136 of Cooke; pages 58, 59, and 60 of Dunning; and page 44 of Reid. If it is alright with you, I'll e-mail you first so that you can attach the screenshots or scans in your reply. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 00:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this when I get back from work, but I've never been asked to provide copies of pages from books before.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The scans that you sent me do indeed verify the information cited to them (thanks again), and through a bit of my own digging I was able to find verification of the information cited to Priest ([1], [2]). --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 15:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source for reference 16 (Parks and Gardens) pegs the area of the grounds at 5 hectares instead of 3, and the remains of the park at 87 hectares instead of 60.

I will look for other sources for confirmation, but that source does say "around 5 hectares" - I'm not sure if exact measurements have been taken.— Rod ^talk 17:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the article says 3 hectares for the grounds and 60 hectares for the park remains, whereas the source says around 5 hectares for the grounds and 87 hectares for the park remains. Please do look for other sources for confirmation, because as the relevant sentence in the article stands, it doesn't quite match the source given. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 00:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly the hotels own website says "Nestled in 36 acres of beautiful West Country parkland" (which is mirrored on some "advert" websites & this from the Telegraph, whereas this says "30-acre classical landscape".— Rod ^talk 18:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the area less specific & added other sources which give different figures.— Rod ^talk 18:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an improvement, it's interesting to see the inclusion of the lower estimates for the park size, but the figures of 3 hectares for the landscaped grounds/gardens and the upper estimate of 60 hectares for the park remains are still unsupported by the sources. I recommend either finding a source to verify the figures of 3 and 60, or else changing the sentence to reflect the source from Parks & Gardens UK (i.e. "Ston Easton has gardens and landscaped grounds ... of around ~~3 hectares (7 acres)~~ 5 hectares (12 acres) and the remains of a park of between 30 acres (12 ha) and ~~60 hectares (150 acres)~~ 87 hectares (215 acres)"). --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 15:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the change as you have suggested.— Rod ^talk 18:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rod, we're good to go now. --Dylan620 's public alt ^{(I'm all ears)} 19:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am overlooking something, the Telegraph references (12 and 13) seem to give 1977 instead of 1978 as the year the house was sold to the Smedleys, and 2002 instead of 2001 as the year of the Von Essen purchase.

Re: The Smedley purchase: This source says put up for sale in 1977. This one from the Telegraph says Smedley got married in 1977, rather than bought Ston Easton. This one from the Daily Mail (which we don't cite anymore) just says late 70s. This one says 1978.

That last link alleviates my concerns regarding the Smedley purchase citation, but it also reveals a text similarity that is a bit too close for comfort:
As seen in the link in question: In 1956 Richard John Bayntun Hippisley died, and his son John Preston Hippisley was obliged to sell Ston Easton Park in order to pay death duties. The house was neglected and soon fell into disrepair; it was proposed that the building should be demolished, though thankfully it was saved by a Preservation Order in 1958. In 1964 it was purchased by William Rees-Mogg, who restored the building. In 1978 William Rees-Mogg sold the house to the Smedley family, who further restored the house and grounds and subsequently converted it into a luxurious hotel.
As seen in the closing paragraph of Ston Easton Park#History: In 1956 Richard John Bayntun Hippisley died, and his son John Preston Hippisley was obliged to sell Ston Easton in order to pay death duties. The house was neglected and fell into disrepair — it was even proposed that the building should be demolished, though it was saved by a Preservation Order in 1958. In 1964 Ston Easton was purchased by William Rees-Mogg who restored the building. In 1978 Rees-Mogg sold the house to the Smedley family, who further restored the house and grounds and subsequently converted it into a hotel. The house was sold again in 2001 to Von Essen Hotels.
--Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 00:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a backwards copy - ie the village website copied it from wp. The earliest copy I can find from 7 July 2014 is this wheras that text has been in the wp article from 2006 (see this version). However to prevent problems I will reword when I get some time.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded this although it was on wp first.— Rod ^talk 18:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I probably should have done more to check whether the village site copied Wikipedia instead of the other way around (the idea of comparing the page histories slipped my mind), but for what it's worth, I actually find the revised Wikipedia paragraph to be better-written. --Dylan620 's public alt ^{(I'm all ears)} 18:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, "It was occupied by their descendants until 1956 with recent owners restoring the house"... this phrase reads as unclear whether who "they" are. My first assumption as a reader would be the Hippisley family, but it might be a good idea to clarify.

I've attempted to exlpain this a little better.— Rod ^talk 17:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the "recent owners" was a good idea and I actually hadn't thought of that, so kudos, but for what it's worth, I was actually referring to the descendants (as in, "descendants of whom?"). I realize now that, ironically, my own comment might have been unclear - sorry about that! --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 00:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another go at clarifying this was the descendants of Hippisley-Coxe.— Rod ^talk 18:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Dylan620 's public alt ^{(I'm all ears)} 18:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A minor quibble that admittedly will have little bearing on my decision to pass or fail the article, but the rectification of which I think would probably be a good idea anyway, is that the article alternates between "Hippisley Coxe" and "Hippisley-Coxe" - I recommend selecting either the spaced or hyphenated version and applying it consistently throughout.

Standardised on Hippisley-Coxe.— Rod ^talk 17:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 00:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 04:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and that's a wrap

With all of my concerns resolved, I can now pass the article. Excellent work, Rod! --Dylan620 's public alt ^{(I'm all ears)} 19:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]