Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belton House

Belton House[edit]

This is about one of England's greatest buildings, albeit not one of its best known. I found this page as a stub a couple of weeks ago, but it is mostly a self nomination, but with a lot of good advice and copy-editing from other editors. Particularly Bishonen. I think the pictures are great, but then I took them! It seems to me the page is as complete and referenced as is possible and it meets all the criteria. Giano | talk 22:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellently written and quite interesting article; my only question in this regard would be to ask if you have the map coordinates of the house available. However (and I suspect you'll throroughly hate me for this) I have a number of concerns with regards to the references for the article. There are a few parenthetical citations still remaining in the text that should be converted to footnotes, as well as a number of websites listed in the footnotes that need, at a minimum, assess dates (and perhaps a listing in the "References" section as well?). More curiously, the ISBN (ISBN 0802112285) listed for Chesshyre's Belton House seems to instead resolve to The English Country House in Perspective by a Gervase Jackson-Stops; perhaps you made an error in transcribing it? Kirill Lokshin 00:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was a mistranscription The English Country House in Perspective was one of the major refs used, sorry. Map ref is now in the lead, it was actually a link before. I hope I have now addressed all your points. The only links left now in the notes, are those which were not used as references, but are there for the benefit of anyone interested further in a particular area mentioned in the text. Just put of interest do you know - there are two books listed both published in the 1960s which don't give their ISBNs anywhere that I can find on them - is that common? Giano | talk 08:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ISBN wasn't introduced until 1966 (and didn't become a standard until 1970), anything published before that date may not have one unless it was reprinted. Everything else seems fine now; full support from me. Kirill Lokshin 12:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's great. Noting Jim62's point (below) concerning the map reference do you have any comment? It would be nice to keep everyone happy. Could it be a footnote after Lincolnshire? Giano | talk 12:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A footnote could work. Alternately, there's a template I've seen that places the coordinates in the top right corner of the article, but I can't recall the name offhand; I'll see if I can find it somewhere. Kirill Lokshin 12:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It's one of {{coor title d}}, {{coor title dm}}, or {{coor title dms}}, depending on how exact you want the numbers to be. Kirill Lokshin 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! a Giano nom... (jumps excitedly from torpor of constant 'object' votes...) Anyway, Conditional Support. Could the map with lettered rooms have have its explanation be a subsection, or paragraph in another subsection, instead of an overlong picture caption? That's my only quabble (Is that a word?) RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 01:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thrilled your thrilled and even more thrilled with the conditional support, and I don't want to lose it, but I would like to attempt to change your view by explaining why it's captioned like that. The best idea would have been to have the room names actually written in the rooms, but that would not show up clearly at low resolution. The plan is referred to continually throughout various sections so a sub-para would be repetition, yet I think the plan need to have an explanation close at hand, it's tiresome to have to keep scrolling up and down. What do you think? Giano | talk 07:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Lovely. Tony 05:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really good...being a facts and figures kind of editor, do we have any numbers as far as the dimensions of the exterior, the square footage, or the height so that we can get a rough idea of size?--MONGO 09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted your comment Mongo and am working on it. The figures or at least some of them must be given somewhere, just a question of where. I'll look more thoroughly this evening. Giano | talk 13:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine...I Support anyway, I just thought that if those numbers in metric or standard were available, it may help get an idea of scale..the images actually do a fairly good job of this...it's almost as big as my summer cottage. Ha.--MONGO 18:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well your vote is very welcome - thanks, because I can't find dimensions anywhere "Country house in Perspective" is full of plans and line drawings, yet does not give a dimension anywhere, I'll bin the useless book! Google is worse than nothing, having seen the place I would say the kitchen "A" on the plan is about 5m X 15m. Otherwise take a look at the amazingly professional fotos and take an inspired guess. In the meantime I'll keep searching. I'm afraid I can't return there with a measure, because I was practically evicted while taking interior fotos with my fone and they may remember me! Giano | talk 19:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Very nicely done (although the latitude and longitude bit seems unnecessary and breaks the rhythm of the intro). Jim62sch 09:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote.Kirill Lokshin has come up with a brilliant (IMO) solution to your point and fixed it. Giano | talk 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Solid article. Just went through and added metric equivalents to the two land areas given. Also, what did you mean with "encourage people to spend longer"? Is there some sort of missing word? But otherwise nothing wrong. Daniel Case 15:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote. I see what you mean, I'll fix it now. Giano | talk 15:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very thoughtful and thorough article. DVD+ R/W 18:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Informative, well-referenced, with many images that help illustrate the subject. Great job! --Aude (talk contribs) 02:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ support. Good, well written article. I've fixed the vernacular link to point to Vernacular architecture rather than the literary sense. I'm a little concerned with the assertion that:- '(Belton House) has been described as a compilation of all that is finest of Carolean architecture, the only truly vernacular style of architecture that England has produced since the time of the Tudors.' Do you have a citation for this? I'd have thought that at least Georgian architecture could be considered vernacular if we take it's meaning to be an indigenous architecture that does not necessarily require the intervention of architects.--Mcginnly 10:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the article Georgian architecture states; 'Georgian styles were assimilated into an architectural vernacular that became part and parcel of the training of every carpenter and plasterer, from Edinburgh to Maryland.'--Mcginnly 13:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote. I don't want to argue with someone who has just supported either ;-). It is cited the very first one (after "has been described"). Georgian architecture is a collective term that covers 18th and sometimes early 19th century classically based architecture, it is not exclusive (in spite of its name) to England, its evolved from palladianism, it was not really something new and different in its conception whereas Carolean is a clear style easily recognized. I suspect this is one of those things that could be argued for ever. It is cited though not just my opinion. I have never edited (the unreferenced) Georgian architecture but a quick glance of the two images there described as Georgian one looks like what the British call "Queen Anne" ( a late Carolean before Georgian), and the other is quite definitely and famously Neoclassical [1]. If you want to continue this we can on my talk page as it is quite convoluted Giano | talk 13:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appologies! Just seen there was a typo in the quote "has" should read "had", but above refering to Georgian still stands Giano | talk 18:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much more comfortable with Carolean being the only truly vernacular times since the time of the tudors, rather than ever. I've actually heard of carolean, described as a kind of 'proto-georgian' anyway, now fully support --Mcginnly 12:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow! Nice article. Prose, citation, content, everything checks out. However, I wonder why all of the nice photographs are in GIF format (Ironically, the only non-GIF is the floor plan JPEG, which should be a PNG). Since all these images were taken by Giano, I wonder if he might upload the original JPEGs? Converting them now would not be beneficial to the quality, but the dithering is a real shame when you view the full resolution. It's not big enough a deal for me to oppose, but I can't support it either as long as this remains so. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because having lightened, brightened and cropped them, when I upload them in any other form they come out pixally, anyway the look fine to me as they are. They serve their purpose which is to illustrate the points raised in the article. Giano | talk 06:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]