As the UK election count carries on with about 300 seats announced, it's time to turns minds to the burning down of Parliament. The last time there was a major fire in Parliament was 1834 and it was an accident that destroyed most of the medieval structure of the royal palace. This article has undergone a recent re-write, and I am hugely grateful to Cassianto, Crisco 1492, Curly Turkey, Tim riley, Brianboulton, Dr. Blofeld and KJP1 for their superb thoughts and comments in a very productive peer review. – SchroCat (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This fine article is a welcome distraction from tonight's horrifying parliamentary events. It is a splendid read, comprehensive, balanced, well proportioned, properly and widely sourced and well illustrated. Clearly FA standard. Tim riley talk04:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Doc, I dealt with them all, but didn't, for some unknown reason, thank you for your comments. Many thanks. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Map could be a bit larger - the details referred to in the caption aren't really legible at that size
I've upped it a little, and it's much clearer now. I can't do it too much more (I think) as it'll start sandwiching text with the tallies image on wider screens (I'm on a laptop at the moment, and all is OK, but I'll check later on my main machine. -SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All done, bar the last (so far). I only know the rather tedious way of manually archiving single links, but I have heard somewhere that it's possible to automatically do them in large batches. Any thoughts on how to ensure I don't have to do them one by one? Thanks so much for the review - very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The improvements have put this article into FA territory, IMHO. Neutral. Oppose for now, per User:Johnbod's comments below about the map and images. I would like to see a clear image of what the building looked like beforehand, from the outside. Ideally, that image would be juxtaposed with an image of what it looked like after reconstruction, from the same angle. That way we might better appreciate (1) what was destroyed, and (2) how different the place would look today but for this little faux pas. Incidentally, you mention "Gothic Revival" in the lead as the style of the new structure, but I don't see any wikilinked style of the old structure, in the lead. Also, Lord Althorp is often credited with issuing a famous command during the fire, and the crowds were not merely watching, but cheering quite happily in favor of the damage to parliament.[2] Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts on this. If I can break down your comments a little:
1. I've not seen an external image from the same angle, partly because the buildings are on a slightly different alignment. Instead I've gone for the two of the interiors of the Lords and Commons.
2. There may have been a single style, but I don't remember seeing it. If there isn't, it's because the complex was the result of developments over several centuries. I'll go back over the sources later this evening to see if it says anything other than "medieval".
3. I know of Althorp's comment, but it certainly wasn't a command: Braidwood made the decision based on the progress of the fire, not at Althorp's direction.
4. The weight of the sources point in the direction of the crowd not cheering, although they had mixed reactions to the fire, and the quotes of the two eye-witnesses Carlyle and Hobhouse cover that. The BBC has, in comparison to more in depth investigations into the fire, simplified the reaction too far to be usable.
Thanks again for your thoughts: I'll get back to you on whether the sources describe the Palace as being of one identifiable style by 1834. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, and I'll be curious about the pre-1834 style. As for an external image, are you saying that we can't get any external image at all, showing the building beforehand? That would seem odd. If Althorp wasn't giving a command, then why not debunk the common notion that he was? As for Hobhouse and Carlyle, it would be nice if we could provide a third source as a tiebreaker (Caroline Shenton's book says quite a lot about public reactions to the fire, which are as interesting as the facts of the fire itself). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we need a "tie-breaker". We reflect what the sources say, and do so in as neutral and balanced way as we can. Providing something that moesthe argument towards one side or t'other would not properly reflect the sources. Yes, Shenton is excellent on all aspects of the fire, including the crowd reactions, but we also have to try and keep this in balance with the rest of the article, rather than try and give too much emphasis to this, at the expense of the other aspects of the fire. I'll be back shortly with the info about the architecture. - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As to whether Hobhouse was correct or Carlyle was correct, a brief quote from Shenton herself woukd clear it up: "The atmosphere was generally one of stunned astonishment rather than festivity."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to. The eyewitnesses show two different opinions, both of which are probably correct (we don't know where they were in the crowd, or at what time, and both are probably accuratly reporting their impressions). Shenton makes it clear that she has an impression of what may have happened, rather than just reporting a straight "fact", which isunverifiable at this distance. I do prefer to show the actual impressions, rather than trying to judge one side against the other based only on a C21st historian's own POV. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of what Shenton and several other sources have written as I have read her and others several times. I am happy with what is there and do not propose to change it in favour of any particular "side", which would not reflect the full range of sources available. – SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both are passable images, but I do not propose removing the images of the Lords and Commons (which is what we'd have to do) to put these in. It's a judgement call, and I invite uninvolved parties to comment further on the selection of internal or external views of the old Palace. – SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you would like to consider Shenton to be a "side" then it's puzzling why her side cannot be briefly included ("The atmosphere was generally one of stunned astonishment rather than festivity"). I don't see why any image would have to be removed in order to show what the original building exterior looked like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We'd have to remove images because we're about at saturation point with images in the article. On wider screens we are already close to sandwiching the text as it is, so to add any more, we'd have to take some out. – SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding another image would end up with the Braidwood image out of alignment with his text, and have it going into the "Aftermath" section, which leads to the text sandwiching up against the Barry/Pugin image. As I've said, I'd like to hear the views of third parties on this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd like to hear from third parties too. This article has 17 images, compared to 56 in Wells Cathedral so it's not quite jammed yet. And if more text is needed to provide a sufficient home for more images, a great place to start would be by including the Shenton quote: "Caroline Shenton has examined further evidence of the crowd's reaction, and concludes that 'The atmosphere was generally one of stunned astonishment rather than festivity'". I think these two changes alone would greatly accentuate the excellent work you have done. But perhaps third parties will disagree with me about that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two pre-fire images I suggested, this one much more closely corresponds to the image at the top of this Wikipedia article. I can take this pre-fire image to the Wikipedia graphics lab if anyone would like to see how much it could be improved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As lovely as I'm sure they are, please, no more images. To much of a good thing can be bad and I think the article will suffer as a consequence of adding too many images. CassiantoTalk21:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like there to be a decent image of the pre-1834 parliament somewhere on Wikipedia, and if such an image becomes available then I would be glad to put it elsewhere than in this article, though it seems highly relevant here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and I'm sure there will be, but your complaint is moot seeing as you now say you wish to see it "somewhere" on WP as opposed to just here. Have you considered finding one yourself and uploading it to the encyclopedia? If and when you do, here would be the wrong place as there is no room at the inn. CassiantoTalk21:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Houses of Parliament before 1834 FireYup, thanks, that's what I'm thinking of. I have found a very nice image that I just uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (at right). Cheers. Feel free to change your mind about including it here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1, Anythingyouwant mentioned that we "mention 'Gothic Revival' in the lead as the style of the new structure, but I don't see any wikilinked style of the old structure, in the lead": I've gone through my sources and it's not entirely clear what would be the best term (or terms) to use. There's a mention of a generic "medieval" style, as well as gothic, but sort of hints at other bits. As you're our resident architectural expert, do you have a view on this? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I also had an input at peer review and think an interesting article of high quality has been well polished by the PR. For what it is worth, I'm really not sure the collection of buildings that comprised the old palace, constructed over more than six centuries, could be said to have a defining style. If you look at the illustration, you seem to have some Wyatville Gothic - a hint of Ashridge, a bit of Palladianism, and some original medieval work. I'm a long way from my Pevsner, and no sources come to mind, but I don't think it would be appropriate to try to encapsulate the architectural style(s) of the earlier palace in a single term. KJP1 (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks KJP1, your comments and thoughts at PR were invaluable in the improvement of this article. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The considerable volume of comment and suggestions from the peer review has been used intelligently to produce an article that is informative, entertaining, and of high quality. My only complaint might be that the page is somewhat over-illustrated, but I recognise that this is a matter of opinion. Well worthy of featured status. Brianboulton (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the first line you say the palace was destroyed; in the second line of paragraph two you add "The fire ... destroyed a large part of the palace". This seems inconsistent.
I think articles with too many photos look a bit cheap.
Do you mean specifically photos, or any images? Which would you suggest I get rid of, as I think they all serve a purpose, but happy to mull over any suggestions. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources include three articles from The Observer and two from The Times. When I click these links I expect to read the original article; I've zero interest in seeing a Wiki article about the newspaper.
The names of the papers are linked, which is what they link to. If the article titles were linked, that would be what the link would point to. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish philosopher, was one of those present that night, and he later recalled that ..." should be "Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish philosopher, was one of those present that night and later wrote ...". Carlyle's letter are out of copyright and in the public Domain. Link to the source rather than a Wiki article. This is the link: https://archive.org/stream/lettersofthomascarl00carl#page/227/mode/1up
I've linked the main source to the archive, rather than linking away from Wiki in the middle of the article, which I think is frowned upon by the MoS. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see you've already linked to Carlyle's letters. Apologies! I missed that. I only saw the Wiki link to Thomas Carlyle. I see what you mean about the newspaper sources, but I'd not considered this before. I assumed that links would point to the article you're citing. So why link three times to a Wiki article about The Observer? I'll let you and your fan club decide which images (if any) could be removed. Once again, you've written a very good article. Singora (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be tempted to remove the fourth painting in 16 October 1834 as it's really not a very clear one with much to look at and four images in a row seems a lot. The problem though is that very painting seems one of the more notable ones and has its own article! Ah well. Other than that I don't think they look too bad at all.♦ Dr. Blofeld07:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now Pretty much there, but more clarity is needed as to what was there, and what went in the fire:
Echoing complaints above, it isn't very clear what the buildings that were destroyed were or looked like. The list of kings at the start of "background" "The Palace of Westminster originally dates from the first half of the eleventh century when Canute the Great built his royal residence on the side of the River Thames. Successive kings added to the complex: Edward the Confessor built Westminster Abbey; William the Conqueror began building a new palace; his son, William Rufus, continued the process, which included Westminster Hall, started in 1097; Henry III built new exchequer buildings in 1270..." isn't very helpful, since I'd imagine only work by the last two, at most, remained to be burned. What dates were the buildings burned? Shenton must cover this surely? There are in fact a number of images that can be used, either on Commons already, or easy to upload. But these should be captioned explaining how they relate to the plan already used; in particular which of the various Gothic gable-fronts is featured. From my reading of the article and looking at images, the large Georgian building at the left of the current top image is the Speaker's House, which burned down. But I'm not sure about this, and I should be.
Im not sure what you mean by "What dates were the buildings burned?" your comment of "only work by the last two, at most, remained to be burned" is off the mark: the complex developed over time and aspects of the buildings survived and were merged into the rest. As I've said above, I don't intend to add an image of the outside of the building: there are two images of the inside (Lorda and Commons). It's a judgement call, and I've gone down this route, rather than the other. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "What were the approximate dates of building of the parts of the palace that were burned?", to which it is becoming clear that you don't know the answer. I don't think this is an extravagant request, or one that is impossible to source. It seems you don't intend to use the images you already have to explain the buildings either. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not try and double guess what I know the answer to or not: I was asking for clarification for a poorly worded question (the answer, prior to clarification, would have been 1834). - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't like the tiny 3/4-high multiple images, which I doubt are MOS-compliant. Use mini-galleries instead. The settings used at Waddesdon Bequest allow decent sizes & room for captions, and would allow for more images.
Yes, I saw. But not settled, and I disagree with you. In fact the images already used, or the same number with a few swops, would probably be sufficient, if they were well-explained, which they are not at present. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My gut reaction here is to leave them as they are, but it's certainly not set in stone (although I am not a fan of the mini-gallery approach). I don't think they somehow infringe the MoS: Crisco 1492, does the placement of images here go against the MoS in any way? – SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They come out far smaller that the default size (220px), which MOS discourages. I don't think that being part of a "multiple" gets round that myself, though I don't know if that issue has been pronounced upon. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any previous discussions, though the template documentation suggests it is allowed. When it comes to the multiple image template, the problem is that using the default thumbnail size means that images end up having different heights, which looks highly unprofessional and generates white space; hence why, in the past, I've helped Schro standardize images heights instead of widths. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone point me to the policy that says we cannot have images below 220px? I've searched through a couple of the relevant pages and can see nothing that disbars marginally smaller images from being used, so I suspect I've missed the relevant page. - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are uploading more images to Commons, please categorize them properly, unlike the the Constable you uploaded. They do not need to go to "Category:National legislatures", but they do need to go to "Category:Palace of Westminster" or "Category:Palace of Westminster in art"! In fact there should be sub-cats on Commons for the old PoW, and the fire. Personally I'd favour more images, but they should be explained properly.
I think we are at saturation point with images, and some have commented that there may be too many, so I am not inclined to add yet more. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Barry planned what Christopher Jones, the former BBC political editor, has called "one long spine of Lords' and Commons' Chambers"[77] which enabled the Speaker of the House of Commons to look through the line of the building to see the Queen's throne in the House of Lords." What everybody else calls this is an enfilade, and the PoW is mentioned in that article, which should be linked.
I don't think the image of the map is particularly useful, as compared to the image suggested above showing the buildings before the fire. But if the map is kept, is it correct? The same map is in the Palace of Westminster article, where the caption says: "The Court of Requests, between the two Houses, would become the new home of the Lords in 1801." The map is dated 1746 so it was largely obsolete by the time of the fire.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current lead image shows pretty much the same view as the one above, with added flames and smoke. Both show the complex end on, and you need the map, and either the explanations which the article does not provide, or a period of thinking about it (and knowing the present site) to work out more or less what is what. As it is, the unspecified but built-up/yard (?) areas of the map give rise to many mysteries. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image (like the one above) is a kind of "L" shape, with the base of the "L" being farthest from the vantage point. It would be wise for this Wikipedia article to say which of the two houses is the base of the "L", and to show the "L" clearly on the map, if the map is kept.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The images are I think the view from about the stray "A" at the bottom of the map, done in 1746, which was presumably before the large Georgian building on the left of both pictures (Speaker's House?) was built. They thus show none of the Houses of Lords and Commons, nor Westminster Hall, at all well. This is what makes the (a) map necessary. The large gable rising above the other buildings is presumably the west end of Westminster Hall. But I entirely agree, and have been saying, that much better explanations are needed. It is unacceptable in an FA that this sort of puzzling-out needs to be done by the reader. Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful map now pointlessly removed, article taken a slight backward step. I do not think an addition of a replacement image would be beneficial, given the comments of those who already think there are too many images. – SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame me, I didn't propose that at all, and described the map as "necessary" just above. If you have chosen to remove the one element that went some way to explain the layout of the buildings, the need for explanation by other means becomes all the more pressing, but you have made no moves in this direction. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I am at work without sources or the time to look into them. I will edit the section in question when I am ready to. - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't need to do that. This is the article about the fire, not a full history and description of the Palace of Westminster. You may leave your oppose to stand if you wish, but I do not agree with what would be bloating of that section and will not add to it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A "full" description is not in question, but an article on a fire cannot be called comprehensive with no attempt at describing the physical characteristics of the site that was burned. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a description, and it is entirely adequate for the article. You have your opinion, and that is fine, but, like your personal opinion on the use galleries, it is not one I share. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just uploaded a detailed floor plan of the palace as it existed just prior to the fire. I still need to add some descriptive information, and will do so soon.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the map, User:SchroCat. There's one tiny thing that could remove some confusion: putting a red dot onto the map showing the vantage point for the image in the lede. Would that be okay? We could make a separate map image with the dot.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would not be acceptable. Not only can the lead image can change at any time, to judge where the position was would be to go too far into OR. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. One last question from me: the image description for the map says "The Old Court of Requests, afterwards the House o. Lords, and made the House of Commons since the fire.... C. The Painted Chamber, fitted up for the House of Lords in 1834-5." Since I am lazy, could you please tell me whether the Wikipedia article reflects these facts, and the apparent reality that the remnants of the palace were adequate to continue giving shelter to parliament?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the caption at the top image should say which house is at right, and which house is at rear. Since you don't want to answer my question, I will read through the article again to find the answer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the answer to my question seems to be in the following text: "The fire lasted for most of the night and destroyed a large part of the palace, including the converted St Stephen's Chapel—the meeting place of the House of Commons—the Lords Chamber, the Painted Chamber and the official residences.....Parliament still needed somewhere to meet, and the Lesser Hall and Painted Chamber were re-roofed and furnished for the Commons and Lords respectively." This seems a bit contradictory; the Painted Chamber was damaged rather than destroyed, or else the Lords couldn't have moved there. As for the "Lesser Hall", you start discussing it without saying what it was used for prior to the fire; contrary to Brayley, you say that the old House of Lords was destroyed rather than damaged. If I have erred here, it is because I am not an expert in this area, which is why I posed this as a question to you, User:SchroCat.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I did read the article previously, and even after reading through it again the answer was still unclear. Therefore, I have directly edited the Wikipedia article.[3]Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was extremely clear in the original. Your edit was,poor and I've reverted: I'll tweak it properly in the morning. - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the changes made are improvements, certainly, but I think none of the captions to the images already there have changed. What is the objection, for example, to explaining the rough vantage point of the top image, and relating it to key parts of the complex? Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still? I do not intend to discuss this further, except to point out that to play a game of "guess the vantage point" is WP:OR (or possibly WP:SYNTHESIS), a route down which I will not go. You have opposed based on your opinion, which is not one I share (and is nothing to do with anything as silly as "natives" being "unfriendly"). Time for you to sort out the issues on Waddesdon Bequest rather than keep pressing the same point here. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the very fine print of the top image, it seems to say something like "As seen from Abington Street"? Is that correct? Where is Abington Street on the map?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The top image is the same view as the top image at Old Palace Yard. The map at Palace of Westminster shows the Old Palace Yard, southeast of which is the letter "A", being the first letter of "Abingdon Street". The map in the present article has north at left, and south at right. The top image of this article is from a vantage point to the right of the Old Palace Yard using the present article's map.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's very clear. In case anyone was wondering, since not much has changed since my original comments, I reiterate my oppose. I don't think the article meets FA standards in the text and images covering the buildings, which is a pity, as the main narrative of the events is fine. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to bold: you have done that first time round and the bolding affects the featured co-ordinators' script to show an additional !vote. Perhaps you should now make your treatment of images on Waddesdon Bequest MoS compliant. I have not opposed (yet) to avoid accusations of a petty response, but I find it amusing that you fail to follow the MoS in your own nominated article, but feel justified in opposing it in others. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, right. Strange how none of my reviewers have had any problems with the Waddesdon images, whereas several here have had issues, which you have for the most part firmly slapped down. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to go over and oppose, although I'm sure you'd complain about sour grapes. Hint: px is the main concern and the excessive use of mini galleries are both eschewed by the MoS. As to this FAC, "several"? No. "Slapped down"? No. There is a difference of opinion on one point, with two editors, that is all. – SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What complete rubbish. You might try helping out at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#Image_overload, where the MOS theologians are not sure an article with "872 words of readable prose and 430 images" is against the rules! I will raise there the "fixing too small" issue; it used to be in the MOS & certainly should be. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not competent to comment on the images/map issues but, re-united with my Pevsner, I wonder if using a little from his and Bradley's volume would address the other outstanding issues which, in summary, would appear to be what buildings were there before the fire, what style, if any, did these buildings have, and what survived to be incorporated into Barry and Pugin's building? In relation to the pre-existing structures, Pevsner writes; "the buildings of and around the palace were by no means in a monumental style. The informality with which the area was treated is astonishing." He then describes Wren's changes to St. Stephen's Chapel, Wyatt's, typically gimcrack, "additions and alterations" and Soane's rebuilding of part of Westminster Hall, the construction of the new Law Courts, and the "Neoclassical" royal entrance, royal gallery and staircase, committee rooms and libraries". Of the style of the Courts, Pevsner describes Soane's original "characteristically personal Neoclassical manner" which he subsequently "Gothicize(d)", following "ferocious criticism". Lastly, he summarises the survivors of the fire as "Westminster Hall and the Law Courts, the cloister and the undercroft of St. Stephen's Chapel, and the new Soane buildings..."
From all this, I think it can be confidently stated that the pre-existing structures did not have any single style, certainly not in the way that the existing structure does. I also think it would be quite easy to add to the existing paragraph in the Background section which begins "By 1834 the palace comprised..." and the final paragraph in the 16 October 1834 section, to clearly indicate what was there before the fire, the fact that these buildings did not have a single, defining style, (if this is thought necessary), and what remained after the fire. If people think this might address the outstanding concerns, I'd be very willing to try to draft a couple of sentences which I could place here for comment. I'm afraid I'm unlikely to be able to do it before the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that would be helpful. Whether or not there was a unifying style was not an issue for me. There are currently a lot of images in the article but no attempt in the captions or text to say what buildings they are, and evidently some resistance to doing so. With reference to the Victoria County History and the new plan it is straightforward to identify the main features. Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background - revise para. beginning, "By 1834 the palace comprised....." to read something like;
"By 1834, the palace complex had been further developed, firstly by John Vardy in the middle of the eighteenth century, and in the early nineteenth century by James Wyatt and Sir John Soane. Vardy added the Stone Building, in a Palladian style to the West side of Westminster Hall; Wyatt enlarged the Commons, moved the Lords into the Court of Requests and rebuilt the Speaker's House. Soane, taking on responsibility for the palace complex on Wyatt's death in 1813, undertook rebuilding of Westminster Hall and constructed the Law Courts in a Neoclassical style. Soane also provided a new royal entrance, staircase and gallery, as well as committee rooms and libraries."
16 October 1834 - revise para. beginning, "The House of Lords, as well as its robing and committee rooms, were all destroyed....." to read something like;
"The House of Lords, as well as its robing and committee rooms, were all destroyed, as was the Painted Chamber, and the connecting end of the Royal Gallery. The House of Commons, along with its library and committee rooms, were devastated, as was the official residence of the Clerk of the House and the Speaker's House. Other buildings, such as the Law Courts, were badly damaged and in need of restoration.[53] The buildings within the complex which emerged relatively unscathed included Westminster Hall, the Cloisters and undercroft of St. Stephen's, the Jewel Tower and Soane's new buildings to the South."
Hopefully, these additions will address the issues regarding what was standing prior to the fire and what survived it. I've also tried to include something on the style of the pre-fire complex. If they work for people, I can, of course, add references. KJP1 (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have amended the article in line with the above. Very much hope this addresses the concerns regarding the complex immediately pre and post the fire. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These additions seem fine to me, but I'd like to see SchroCat's opinion. Meanwhile, I suggest a slight tweak in the second sentence of the 16 October paragraph, to avoid the repetition of "as was". Thus: "The House of Commons, along with its library and committee rooms, the official residence of the Clerk of the House and the Speaker's House, were devastated." Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very happy with the additions - I asked KJP1 (by email) to drop them in. I've made the tweak per your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
_p4.063_-_The_Houses_of_Lords_and_Commons.jpg){kind=link}
_p288_-_The_Houses_of_Parliament_with_the_Royal_Procession.jpg){kind=link}
