Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cragside/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2017 [1].

---

Cragside

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk), DBaK (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

William Armstrong, 1st Baron Armstrong, made his fortune in hydraulic power, guns and warships, transforming Newcastle's industrial landscape in the process. His wealth enabled a further transformation on the Northumbrian moors above Rothbury, where he created Cragside, "the most dramatic Victorian mansion in the North of England”, and its equally dramatic 15,000-acre estate. The house is notable, too, for its technical innovations using water power, providing electric lighting and water-powered spits, dumb waiter, dishwasher and dinner gong. The financial misfortunes of his successors brought this remarkable house into National Trust stewardship in 1977, opening to the public two years later. KJP1 and DBaK hope that you enjoy the article and that, if you do not already know Cragside, you might one day feel inspired to visit this extraordinary house and its estate. Any and all suggestions for improvement most gratefully received. KJP1 (talk), DBaK (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

Support, I was pleased with responses in the peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Gerda - much appreciated, and many thanks for your input at Peer Review. KJP1 (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

re Krupp (below): I think to use "Krupp's" as short for "Krupp's firm" is fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! I think that there is something slightly weirder than that about it, but I cannot at the moment put my finger on it and I am worried about sidetracking myself off down a rabbit hole. If I can't nail it easily then I am going to suggest to KJP1 that we just revert to "Krupp" which is, I think, indisputable. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Direct quotes should be cited wherever they appear, including in image captions

Think these are done now. KJP1 (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• File:William_George_Armstrong.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - many thanks. The first I shall fix immediately, the second will need a bit more digging as I picked it up from Commons. Will get back. KJP1 (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Um! Not sure. The immediate source is a commercial site, J. Cosmas Vintage Photography[2]. I don't think they own the copyrights, just actual images taken from magazines etc. The original source appears to be Cassell & Co., who published a series from 1890-1894 entitled "Cabinet Portrait Gallery". The photographers were W. & D. Downey, who operated a studio from the 1860s to the early 20th century. If this image was published in, say, 1890, it's now 127 years old. Does this make the PD tag acceptable? There are one or two others in Commons, but none that captures him so well. KJP1 (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Published in 1890 in the UK? Because it's on Commons, it needs to account for status in the US (for which, given an 1890 publication, the current tag is fine), but also in its country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes - somewhere between 1890-1894 in the UK. I've added a ((PD-UK-unknown)) , but this can't really be right as we do know the authors, William and Daniel Downey. William died in 1915, and Daniel in 1881, so what tag should I use to show we do know the author but the work's out of copyright in the UK? Sorry, more questions than answers. KJP1 (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

For some reason Commons doesn't appear to have an equivalent to our {{PD-UK}}, but PD-old-70 should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I couldn't find an equivalent, and when I used PD-UK, it told me "deprecated template". I shall hurry off and put PD-old-70 on. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Now all done, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Together with a few minor points I must have missed at peer review (apologies).

• Debden/Debdon
  • I notice we have both "Debden" (4 times) and "Debdon" (twice). The latter is correct, I think.

Done - by DBK.

• William Armstrong
  • "Krupp's" looks fine to me but I feel I ought to point out that the Wikipedia article on the company calls it just "Krupp".

I think the consensus (better get that right) is that "Krupp's", for the firm belonging to Krupp, is acceptable.

• Kitchen, service rooms and Turkish bath
  • "…a dumb waiter and a spit run on hydraulic power" – a very minor quibble, but are they both run on hydraulic power or just the spit? From the lead I infer the latter, but the wording is ambiguous here.

Done - but perhaps not very well? KJP1 (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Armstrong's heirs: 1900–the present
  • "rewiring of the entirety of the house" – a slightly long-winded way of saying "rewiring the whole house"

Done - by DBK.

• Architecture and description
  • Again, although it doesn't trouble me, our article on the subject is on "neoclassical architecture" with no capital letter and no hyphen. (The OED is of that view, too.)

Done - by DBK.

• Technology
  • There is a certain amount of repetition here. In the second paragraph, you repeat the mention of incandescent lighting from the preceding para, and you tell us again about the hydraulic spits in the kitchen. These, by the way, were a single spit when we met them in the "Kitchen, service rooms and Turkish bath" section, earlier.

Done - The spit is now singular, and hopefully the repetition is removed. I've tried to split the section into "the technology" and "the uses to which the techonology was put". I hope this works for people. KJP1 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Grounds and estate
  • "Armstrong bought land continuously" – unless he bought without taking breaks for rest and refreshment you mean "continually".

Done - by DBK.

Nothing of sufficient importance there to delay my adding my support for the promotion of this excellent article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 19:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Tim, hugely appreciate the Support. DBK or I shall go through and address the above. But for now, having stumbled inadvertently across the final thread here, Talk:Josephine Butler, I think I shall just go to bed and despairingly pull the duvet over my head. KJP1 (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

My thanks too Tim. You're absolutely right about Debdon. (I checked Dixon, Heald, Smith and the OS map.) I think you are probably right about Krupp too (and Heald certainly thinks you are). I have a nagging feeling that there is some justification somewhere for the Krupp's usage (and so does our Krupp article where there is, erm, one non-possessive example!) but I am not sure that ferreting it out is worth the candle, if you will pardon the colliding metaphors. (Update: Dixon also says "Krupps". I'm still not sure it's worth chasing though.) We'll catch up with the rest as soon as possible. Thanks again DBaK (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto

There is one thing I'd like to question: the article seems to repeat some references rather unnecessarily, for example:

• "When this was completed in 1869, Shaw was asked to propose enlargements and improvements to the shooting lodge Armstrong had constructed at Rothbury some four years earlier.[20] This was the genesis of the transformation of the house between 1869 and 1884.[20]"
• On a walk with friends, Armstrong was struck by the attractiveness of the site for a house and, returning to Newcastle, he arranged for the purchase of a small parcel of land and decided to build a modest house on the side of a moorland crag.[13] He intended a "house of eight or ten rooms and a stable for a pair of horses".[13] While I'm on this point, what's the purpose of the quote marks? If it is a quote, who said it?
• Armstrong's architect for Cragside's expansion was the Scot R. Norman Shaw. Shaw had begun his career in the office of William Burn and had subsequently studied under Anthony Salvin and George Edmund Street.[16] The former had taught him the mastery of internal planning that was essential for the design of the large and highly variegated houses the Victorian wealthy craved. Salvin and Street had taught him to understand the Gothic Revival.[16]
• When this was completed in 1869, Shaw was asked to propose enlargements and improvements to the shooting lodge Armstrong had constructed at Rothbury some four years earlier.[20] This was the genesis of the transformation of the house between 1869 and 1884.[20]
• In August 1884 the Prince and Princess of Wales made a three-day visit to Cragside; it was the apogee of Armstrong's social career.[32] The royal arrival at the house was illuminated by ten thousand lamps and a vast array of Chinese lanterns hung in the trees on the estate, and by six balloons from which fireworks were launched, and a great bonfire lit on the Simonside Hills.[32]
• It belongs to the first phase of Shaw's construction work and was completed in 1872.[67] It has a large bay window which gives views out over the bridge and the glen.[67]

I'm sure you get the message. Could you go through and blitz the ones you don't need, unless it follows a quote. Aside from that, this is a most engaging article. Cassianto^Talk 20:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto, many thanks indeed. The Support is much appreciated. Entirely take the point and shall see to the multiple, "duplicate" ref.s just as soon as I can. KJP1 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cass - I think I've now done these. I've certainly done the ones cited above, and a few more, but it is quite possible I've missed a couple. I also took out the unreferenced quotes re. the original shooting box. Think they must have been a hangover from some earlier version. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from SchroCat

I had my say at PR, and the article has got much stronger since and it easily fulfils the FA criteria. I'm not a specialist in the area, so this review is based on the prose element only. – SchroCat (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks SchroCat, both for this and for your earlier help at PR: much appreciated. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for your input, both here and at PR. The article's much improved. KJP1 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from HJ Mitchell

I reviewed this in detail at the peer review in the knowledge that the nominators were heading for FAC. I also have a copy of one of the books in the bibliography (Houses of the National Trust by Lydia Greeves) and a couple of other books that cover it in passing so I have no concerns about accuracy or comprehensiveness (comprehensivity? You know what I mean anyway!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell - Many thanks, Harry, for your support and help. I feel that comprehensionivenessdom is almost certainly the word for which you are looking. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Harry, greatly appreciated. The Greeves was a great suggestion. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil

Having also participated in the PR. Excellent stuff. Ceoil (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil for your support here and your help there too. It is a great pleasure to work with you again. Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil - many thanks indeed. Shaw's not Burges, but it is a great building. Just not Fin Barre's, or Coch, or The Tower House, or.... With all best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Moisejp

Minor comments:

• The lead mentions that "honoured guests under Armstrong's roof, including the Shah of Persia ... and the Crown Prince of Japan" visited, but in the main text I could only find the less explicit mention of "Japanese, Persian ... and German dignitaries".

Done'ish - The Shah of Persia, the Crown Prince of Afghanistan and the King of Siam are now explicitly cited. I shall have to dig a little more to unearth where I found the mention of the Japanese Crown Prince. KJP1 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't at present find the reference to the Japanese Crown Price, so have replaced him with a brace of, cited, Prime Ministers. KJP1 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Architecture and description: "Such challenges only drove Armstrong on, and overcoming the technical barriers to construction gave him great pleasure,[56] and was made easier by his use of the workforce and the technology of the Elswick Works." The sentence is a little long, and includes three instances of "and". Suggest to consider breaking it up where the second "and" is.

Done - by splitting. KJP1 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Technology: Mentions the hydraulic "spits", while the Kitchen... section mentions "spit" (singular). Moisejp (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Done - with a singular "spit". KJP1 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Moisejp - thank you so much for your support and for your very useful comments. Both KJP1 and I are up to our eyes in it today ... I don't know what he's up to exactly but for me it's a perfect storm of last day of term at one of my schools plus a load of family jollity. We are both hoping, therefore, to have on Saturday a proper time to address your comments and others remaining, so please don't think we are not interested ... quite the contrary! Thanks again and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes - thanks indeed. I hope we have addressed, almost all of, your comments satisfactorily. I am still searching for the specific reference to the Crown Prince of Japan paying a call. If I can't locate it, I shall just remove it from the lead, but I'm quite certain I didn't dream it. It's just a question of which of the books it is in. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Mainly minor formatting points:

• Ref 29 requires ndash in page range

Done. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 42: The title is inexactly given

Done. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 43 and 103: As the original source is printed, The Guardian should be italicised, as should The Telegraph in ref 105. You have done this for ref 124

Done - x3. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 55 returns a 404 error message

Not yet done. So it does. Blast. May need to find another source. KJP1 (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

KJP1 I've just emailed you about this: please have a look, Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This is now done: I got this book this afternoon. It's nice. Please note (1) I have no idea what I am doing here so my version of Ref 55 needs a check please and (2) the source does not support the word "severe", so it is in our voice. Maybe that is OK though, as a characteristic of this style?? I know that we do not have to cite every adjective, but I just want to make sure we are playing fair by our readers. Thanks again Brian, and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You really are a star. I am glad the book is nice. Since you went to the trouble of buying it, I've put it in Sources, in full, and sfn'ed the cite. KJP1 (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Quick query. I've put it alphabetically under V but wonder if van Marle should actually go under M? KJP1 (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Definitely M, thanks KJP1. Also, if it is used alone then please capitalize the V. The book was written by Jeroen van Marle, but the book was written by Van Marle. I know, but hey. Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Which I have now done, though it does look a little odd to me right now. It does seem to be the correct convention to follow, though I will have a bit of fun looking for more stuff like this in which NL – assuming this is even the right country! – will be found on p. 159. Another way to make it display perhaps better (though YMMV) would be to make their last name ""Marle" and their first name "Jeroen van" – though not explicitly specified this is what is implied in the previously-mentioned PDF. Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 90: can you be sure of its reliability? The site specifically states it is unrelated to any government department, so where does it get its authority from?

For a long time, BLBO was the only on-line source for the listing entries compiled by English Heritage. As the source material are the entries, just in digitalised form, I think they are authoritative. Certainly, I've used them extensively in many architecture articles. That said, I could convert it to Historic England if it's preferred, as they now carry the listing entries themselves?

Comment I think I'd prefer HI as it looks more professional now; it would also bring the building ref into line with the bridge ref (112) which is already HI. DBaK (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Done now - replaced with Historic England cite. Hopefully, correctly formatted! KJP1 (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 118: Again, the title is inexactly given

Done. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 121 links to an IDMb site, not the BBC

Not yet done. Blast again. I shall see if I can find it in the BBC archive. KJP1 (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I've had a preliminary look at this. I have not succeeded in tracking down a BBC ref. For now, I have put in a ref to Meades's own web site, without being sure that this is OK ... comments? Thanks DBaK (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 122 and 123: the former gives publisher as "BBC.co.uk" and the latter gives "BBC" (italicised). The formats should be consistent; in my view the correct form in "BBC" (unitalicised).

Done. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• External links: The Victorian Web is a cited source and should not be listed in this section

Done. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• ISBNs; it has become customary at FAC for ISBNs to be standardised in 13-digit format. When this is not shown in the book itself it can be obtained from this converter

Done - x9. KJP1 (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Brian - many thanks indeed. If you're ok with the Meades (121), I think we are now clear, except for the cite for the Neoclassical style of the Villa Hugel. But DBK is on the case and we should resolve it soonest. Lord, what a truly hideous house that looks. KJP1 (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, many many thanks Brian - it's been very useful indeed. As for the Villa Hügel ... gosh, yes - sort of Belsay Hall without all the jollity and fun :) ... And with regard to the neoclassical bit, that's fixed with the ref and the claim, so done, thanks DBaK (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jim

An excellent and well-illustated article. Just one suggestion, which you are free to ignore; "Engineer of Rifled Ordnance" — even as a Brit I'd never heard of this. I assume it's an honorary title, perhaps a footnote to clarify? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Jim - really glad you liked the article and thank you for the Support. The suggestion is a very good one, which we certainly won't ignore. I'd not heard of it either, and indeed had spelt it incorrectly until DBK noticed the error. I shall see what material can be gleaned for a footnote. Very much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

And footnote duly added. Rather more than an honorific, as it turns out. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Note to co-nom

DBaK - Having addressed the issue of the Crown Prince of Japan, albeit not entirely satisfactorily, I think we've responded to all of the comments made above. Am I missing any, or is there anything that you think we need to consider further? KJP1 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

KJP1 Sounds great to me. I'm glad you sorted out the Crown Princes - I only had evidence for visits in 1953 and 1991 (yes really!) by which time it was a bit too late for Lord Armstrong to be flogging battleships to anyone unless via a ouija board. My last minor worry was the Krupp/Krupps/Krupp's thing which was really just an irritating niggle (albeit one I might like to follow up one day) and in which another editor has satisfactorily de-knotted the situation by zapping the S entirely, which must be right and is not up for petty linguistic discussion! So, yes, I think we are up to date, thank you. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Marle looks a lot better. Great spot checking how he's cited elsewhere on here. KJP1 (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

An early Christmas present

Ian Rose, DBaK - Ian, we're at eight Supports, we think all the issues are addressed, and we've got green lights at the Image and Sources reviews. Any chance of wrapping this one up before Christmas? Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I think we're about there but I would recommended attributing all quotes inline. Some already are but on a quick scan I noticed at least two that weren't: re. "wonderful hydraulic machines" in the lead, and red squirrels in Grounds and estate. As it is I can't be sure if Saint and Binney have said these things or are quoting others (TBH, the squirrel one isn't particularly memorable in itself and would best be paraphrased if you can manage it)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose, DBaK - Ian, many thanks for the comments and the copy edit. I've paraphrased two of the inline quotes (gun and squirrels) and attributed the other. I think that's caught them all but I'll have another read through, and I'm sure DBaK will too, if he's not too tied up in festivities today. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't caught them all. But I think I have now, either by paraphrasing or by attributing, with the single exception of the quote under the main image in the infobox. Does this needs attribution to? Its from a Victorian magazine called World, quoted by Mark Girouard. I could certainly do it, but it may be a little clumsy. I'll have a go, and DBaK can then correct the grammar! KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

And now attempted. KJP1 (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ian Rose for the ce and very useful remarks and KJP1 for the additional edits. I think it's looking good and I haven't picked up any more. I did a tiny change which you will have seen, where an ex-quote no longer needed some re-engineering but I don't see anything else at the moment that I want to fiddle with further! Best to all DBaK (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

DBaK - Great, I'm hoping we're now good but we'll see if Ian agrees. By an odd coincidence, I was working on an FAC today which also had a quote from the World, the source for "palace of a modern magician". Two uses of a long-forgotten Victorian periodical in a single day - who'd have thought. Have a great Christmas and I hope we'll be able to toast this soon! KJP1 (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - gosh yes, amazing! I had a little look in on Sullivan too - great article. And yes, all reciprocated. Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Tks for that guys -- time to open your Christmas present I think... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That's really great - many thanks, Ian Rose. Have a good one. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose, DBaK - Indeed it is. Much appreciated, Ian. Merry Christmas and cheers! KJP1 (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.