Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Cullen House/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cullen House

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering putting this article forward for FAC, and would appreciate a third party's thoughts on eligibility, areas that might need work, etc.

Thanks, GirthSummit (blether) 13:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (I have done this for you already). When you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey SandyGeorgia, thanks for fixing that - I'm a first-time flyer here, I missed that part of the instructions. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Hi Girth Summit, thank you for waiting patiently for a review of this article. I am not an expert in this subject area, so consider this a non-expert review.

  • The second paragraph in the lede is very short. I would combine it into one of the other two paragraphs.
  • The first paragraph in the description talks a little about the history of the building, but there's also a section about the history later on in the article. Perhaps the history section should be placed before the description?
     Done
  • I would change the "Description" heading to something else, perhaps "Architecture" or "Design"? Description sounds too general and I don't know what aspect of the building is being described
     Done
  • "by five elaborately carved dormerheads" elaborately sounds like WP:PUFFERY. What makes them elaborate? Can you describe what they look like?
     Done
  • "The roof line is broken by five elaborately carved dormerheads ..." this sentence is a run-on sentence. Can it be split?
     Done
  • " David Walker and Matthew Woodworth in their Pevsner guidebook on the region as "exuberant" and "wildly boisterous"." The title of the source is unnecessary, as you have it as a reference at the end of the sentence. Just include the historian's names.
     Done
  • "Cullen House was built by the influential Ogilvies of Findlater," Why is he influential? I think this is WP:PUFFERY
     Done
  • The article does not use a lot of sources. I think reviewers will question if all available sources were consulted. I suggest searching databases of old newspapers in the area for more information, especially about its history. Also, Historical Environment Scotland have references sections in their listings that can be consulted.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments Z1720 - much appreciated. Most of these I think I can do something about, but can I probe your thoughts a bit on the puffery aspect? I'd definitely agree with you if I'd said that they were 'exquisitely carved', or even 'finely carved', but I don't think that 'elaborate' is about quality in the 'good/bad' sense, it's more that I'm trying to give the impression that it's some right fancy carving. I could probably use another word like ornate/intricate/flamboyant - but perhaps you would have similar concerns about those?
In the same vein, I appreciate that 'influential' is listed as a word to watch at WP:PUFFERY, but in this case I think it's a fair description. The Ogilvies were the principal landowners in the local vicinity (and they were one of the perhaps three or four major families in the wider Moray region), and the sources refer to them in similar terms. To unpack that properly for the reader would take several sentences - how strong is your concern about the word? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Girth Summit, PUFFERY is not an exact science, and it really depends on the context. Elaborate can describe something as positive, or it could just describe what something looks like. In some cases, puffery words can be replaced with descriptions, which is better for the reader as it is more specific. Since this article is shorter it can spend more time giving details. For elaborate, this word can sometimes stay depending on the description; if the sources say the carving is fancy, then state that and describe why they are fancy. For influential, I don't think it's necessary. Since the article is not about the family, describing their influential status would be off-topic. The reader can already infer that they were important to the region because they held a seat in a county, a privilege given to aristocrats. Let me know if you have other questions or comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 OK, thanks - I'll go back to the sources and see whether I can improve on 'elaborate'. I take your point about 'influential' being unnecessary. I appreciate your taking the time to expand on your thinking. GirthSummit (blether) 09:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 I think I've addressed everything now, except for reworking the lead, and your point that it is somewhat light on sources. I'm still waiting for access to the newspaper archive site - my request has been approved, but waiting for the credentials to come through. Once I've got that, I hope I'll be able to expand the content about the late 20th-C restoration efforts and the fire. I'll hold off on doing anything to the lead until then. Girth Summit (blether) 11:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: After the info from Newspaper Archive is added, please ping me and I will do another review of the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK Z1720, I've done some searches on Newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive.com, and have been able to add a bit more about the 20th-C history. I was surprised that there wasn't more about the 1980s renovations and fire - I found and added what I could, but I'd expected that to have been covered in more detail, at least in the local press; perhaps the relevant issues haven't been digitised. Anyway, please let me know what you think when you have time. Thanks Girth Summit (blether) 12:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have forgotten most of the content in this article, so hopefully I'll see this with a fresh set of eyes!

  • "Originally built between 1600 and 1602, incorporating some of the fabric of a medieval building on the site, it was the seat of the Ogilvies of Findlater, who went on to become the Earls of Findlater and Seafield, and remained in their family until 1982." This feels like two separate thoughts. One idea is that it was built incorporating fabric of a medieval building (and what is the "fabric of a building"? That will need to be explained) and the other is that is was the seat of the Ogilvies of Findlater. I think this should be two separate sentences (and maybe the fabric stuff should go in the subsequent sentence?)
     Done, and I've swapped 'fabric' (which in this context just means 'the stuff the building is made of') for 'stonework'.
  • I think the lede needs one more sentence at the end to describe how the house is being used today. Something like, "It is now used as..."
     Done, but see comment below for concern on sourcing.
  • The history section is very long. Is there a way to subdivide it with level 3 headings?
     Done
  • "A tower was added in 1660, shortly after the third Earl inherited it, then in 1709 Alexander McGill and James Smith were asked to submit plans for a complete remodelling in the Palladian style." This again seems like two separate thoughts that can have their own sentences.
     Done
  • "but Playfair's walled garden was constructed in the grounds in that year." This can have its own sentence.
     Done
  • The History section should have a sentence or two about how the grounds are used today, or some sort of history of the building post-1989.
     Done, but the only sources I can find discussing the present usage are... well, they're basically adverts. The Pevsner guide just says that it was converted into private apartments - it kind of implies that that's what it's still used as, but it doesn't explicitly say so. Similarly, it talks about the gardens, which are still there, but it doesn't explicitly say 'these are still used by the people who live in the apartments' - you're just meant to infer that. I'm not entirely comfortable using these as sources, but they do verify that these are houses that people buy, sell and live in. What do you reckon?
    I do not recommend advertisements as they will probably not be seen as high-quality reliable sources. I re-read the history section and I think the information about how it's used today is fine. Z1720 (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Z1720 Sorry, I'm a bit confused - the information that's there now is coming from the two sources I'm worried about. They're not quite adverts, they're snippets from a couple of quality newspapers (the Guardian and the Independent), but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the estate agents paid for them to be included. Do you think I should cut the sentence and those sources, or leave them in? Girth Summit (blether) 12:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: I took a look at the sources. The Independent is a little dubious, but I think if you only include the information in the "They said" sections it should be OK because there's an independent author from the newspaper attached to that opinion. The Guardian article is also a bit dubious, but it also has an independent author that seems to be attached to the newspaper. I would look at the masthead of the newspaper and see if those authors are listed as newspaper staff, as that will help show their independence from the property listing. Z1720 (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Z1720 Thanks - I'm not sure how to look at the masthead exactly, but Ben Flanagan and Rosalind Russel both have profiles at the websites of the relevant papers so I'm assuming they're legit. I'll go trim anything that isn't presented in the journalists' voice. What's the next step in a peer review now - does this just get archived at some point, is there anything else I'm supposed to do? Thanks again for your help. Girth Summit (blether) 13:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: The masthead for the newspaper should be on a different page of the edition you accessed. The links you sent help, but they don't seem to indicate that they are employees of the newspaper (rather then "special contributors" who are being paid by another company to write promo). Instructions on how to close PRs is at WP:PRG, and once this is closed please also remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Z1720 I've searched through those papers looking for something that lists all their authors, but drawn a blank. However, I checked the following week's Independent, and Rosalind Russel has the same sort of page (here), so whether she's freelance or staff she's obviously attached to the paper - I'm happy enough with that I think. Thanks for all your help. Girth Summit (blether) 13:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which itself incorporated fabric from earlier buildings on the site," Again, I don't know what fabric means in this context.
     Done As above, I've replaced with stonework.
  • "The original entrance to the tower house is in the south-west angle of its west courtyard, in a single-bay, four-storey facade, beneath two tourelles supported by corbels, one of which bears the initials SVO and DMD, representing Sir Walter Ogilvy and his wife, Dame Margaret Drummond, for whom the house was built." Split into two sentences, giving the tourelles their own sentence.
     Done
  • "figures that depict Faith, Hope, and another which is missing its inscription." So there are three theological virtues, and you link Faith and Hope. Is it safe to assume the third one is charity? Do any sources speculate that the third one is charity? If not, is this wikilink to the theological virtues verified?
     Done I found a nineteenth-century source describing the carvings, which seems to have been before the inscription for charity was lost, so reworded a bit.

Those are some comments. Z1720 (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again for this detailed review Z1720 - I've implemented all of these, although I'm concerned about the sources I had to use to verify the assertion about its present use. Detailed comments above. Girth Summit (blether) 10:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment above. Z1720 (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One last question above. Girth Summit (blether) 12:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wingedserif

[edit]

Some drive-by editing comments; sorry!

  • The sentence starting "Its contents were sold in 1975..." should probably divided into two or three sentences. Same for "Their parish church had traditionally been..." and "Buildings from around this time, which served..."
    All  Done
  • Generally, I would beware nesting dependent clauses because they introduce ambiguity about what each clause refers to. For example:
    • "Originally built between 1600 and 1602, incorporating some of the fabric of a medieval building on the site..." —> "Originally built between 1600 and 1602 and incorporating some of the fabric of a medieval building on the site..."
    • "on the site, onto which wings have been added, extending to the north and south" —> "on the site, which had wings that extend to the north and south added to it"
    • "initially built as an L-plan tower house, building upon some of the structure of the canons' lodgings" —> "initially built as an L-plan tower house. The work built upon some of the structure of the canons' lodgings."
      All these examples reworded.

—Wingedserif (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wingedserif - drive-by comments are most welcome. I will have a run though and see if I can improve on sentences like that - it looks like it's a bit of a bad habit of mine, this will perhaps be an opportunity to improve my writing generally :) GirthSummit (blether) 09:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth Summit, it's been over a month since the last comment in this PR. Usually when this happens the PR is closed. Are you still interested in keeping this open? Z1720 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z1720 - sorry, I'm not au fait with the etiquette, it's my first time here. Yes, I intend to work on this soon. The end of the school term has been manic, but the summer holidays are stretching before me invitingly. I should be able to make a proper start next week. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 21:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about etiquette. I just wanted to make sure this was not abandoned, and to let reviewers know that you are still looking for comments. When you have the time, I hope you will review articles at Template:FAC peer review sidebar and WP:FAC. Z1720 (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start on some of the suggestions above. I'm away from home at the moment, but should be back there in a few days and able to review the sources, at which point I'll address the issue of the elaborate carvings; I've also applied to have my access to newspaper archive renewed (hadn't realised it had expired) - I'm seeing quite a lot of nineteenth- and twientieth-century mentions, so should be able to expand on some of the history with that. Once the body is finished, I'll circle back around to take a look at the lead, probably by expanding it a bit (I'll make sure to address the issue of the too-small paragraph). Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 11:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Cullen_House/archive1&oldid=1036272428"