Talk:Cassiobury House

Cassiobury House was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 13, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cassiobury House article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hertfordshire (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire articles

Architecture: Historic houses Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Demolished[edit]

Why was the house demolished? Jason404 (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a collapse in agricultural income, taxation and the aftermath of World War I caused many landowners to go bankrupt. The articles on the British country house contents auctions and the destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain explore this topic. Preservation of historic properties is a relatively modern priority - in the early 20th century there was less concern about demolishing old mansions to make way for housing estates, bypasses etc. 11:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

1st Earl of Essex death[edit]

The recent addition of text about the death of the 1st Earl of Essex and Lawrence Braddon is all very interesting, but it really belongs in the article about Arthur Capell, 1st Earl of Essex. It is biographical detail and is not really about Cassiobury House or Park. I think a sentence summarising his death is fine, but lengthy quotes from sources that have nothing to do with Cassiobury House. I am happy to move this over. Cnbrb (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the reasons stated. Dormskirk (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cassiobury House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cassiobury House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 08:30, 12 June 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):
The writing of this article is generally passable, not great. Its prose is acceptable, but the lead is very very short and does not summarize the article as it should. I have made some minor corrections here and there, but was unable to find a date for the first sentence of the History#Beginnings section with the given citation.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is on this hill that the article truly dies. Firstly, the in-line citation is very poor. Secondly, I ran this through the CopyVio machine and came up with 49% confidence that the article might plagiarize some of its sources or violate copyright. Closer inspection (comparisons) of the top source on the tool showed that some of them were red herrings. There are paragraphs that are very well cited, but the majority of the article is not.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I'm not an expert in this area at all, and given the lack of citation I can't make further citation, so it looks to my untrained eye that this article passes here. While there is a bunch of unused material in citation #3 for example, it looks like it doesn't really apply to the article. Regardless, I would have found some way to work it into the article somewhere (Beginnings maybe?).
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:
I am not going to pass this article purely because of its poor in-line citation. The article's writing is decent but should be looked over for correct grammar, prose should improved, and the article's content should be revised so as to not so badly trip the CopyVio machine.

Thanks. Surprised on the citation front - it is absolutely awash with inline citation, but clearly it's got to be revised at some point. 14:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Beginning[edit]

I am beginning my third Good Article review to determine whether or not the article in question, Cassiobury House, passes muster and is worthy of the Green Plus. I will review this article according to the instructions provided here and confirm or deny that Cassiobury House meets the Good Article criterion.

Inline Citation[edit]

So if anybody would like to make any suggestions as to how inline citation could be improved on this article, I'd be interested. As far as I can tell, the article is pretty well referenced with 54 inline references, so I'd like to know specifically where it is lacking. Cnbrb (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for taking so long to reply because I didn't put this page on my watchlist. In-line citation means that, at the very least, each and every paragraph ends with a citation verifying the information within. I can't really adequately describe it, so I would advise checking out Featured or Good Articles and looking at their citation. Bodiam Castle, for example. For everything taken from a source, there exists a citation for it. –Vami _IV✠ 15:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]