Cragside is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2018. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have removed the reference to Cragside containing the tallest tree in England. This was unreferenced, and although it may once have been the case, this article from Countrylife.co.uk lists the 10 tallest trees in Britain - only one of them is in England, and this is at Dunster Woods in Somerset at 60m tall. Feel free to add back if required, but I think the claim should be backed up by a reference or source. J mcquillen ( talk) 10:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. With this edit today KJP1 changed the infobox photo for a much better one which showed less of a big bank and more of the house. This is unarguably an improvement, thanks. The only thing I do feel may have been lost in the change is a bit of context: in the old one by ChrisDown you could see the house at the top of a hill and in a generally somewhat rugged-looking situation, whereas in the new one it's straight on across the forecourt. Looking up and to the right you can see some wooded hill but it's more difficult to absorb the feel of the place from it. Is some sort of compromise possible here? If there were a photo much more of the house which still somehow captured the cragginess, that would be great. I'm not up for a fight over this but just wanted to mention it and see what others thought. Best wishes to all DBaK ( talk) 10:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
washed out- oh yeah, indeed, maybe the original material just isn't right ... I tried lots of filters and couldn't really get any effect much between "Kodakchrome from 50 years ago that your Mum kept on the windowsill" and "Insane Gothic Horror" so I sort of went sheesh and put the kettle on instead ... DBaK ( talk) 10:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The photo we had definitely fails to convey the "magic" of the magician's home. Keep looking! KJP1 ( talk) 21:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
KJP1, Martinevans123 and any other interested parties ... I have been thinking a lot about this photo issue. Last night I watched again the ludicrous but rather wonderful Glorious Gardens from Above episode which features Cragside alongside a couple of other places of spiritual or temporal bliss. Now, the USP of the apparently insane but very charming and knowledgeable person in the balloon is, erm, the balloon. So watching it – rather more carefully because of this Wretched Encyclopaedic Publication™ – I was very struck by how hard the building is to photograph - that is, they've got a balloon and still only had the few stock shots that we have all seen; probably more relevantly, since I guess the balloon cannot legally be flown anywhere that useful, they were clearly using drones for photography a fair old bit and it is from these that I think the better images may have emerged. To cut a long story short, I fear that the best photo of the house – the one we want – can only be taken if you are hovering about 100ft (30.48 guineas in old money, or possibly 95.24; I get confused) above the bridge, because the topography just isn't photo-friendly in that way ... or at least it is not that friendly towards our specific objectives here. I may be wrong (I usually am) but this was my strong impression. I will, though, have another very close look next time I am there. Cheers DBaK ( talk) 18:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Given the house has great historical and great architectural/artistic significance, I'd suggest it needs separate sections, first, one on The History, and then one on The Architecture, furnishings, art etc. Are people ok with that? KJP1 ( talk) 12:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, huge thanks to
KJP1 for all the fantastic, painstaking work on the present expansion. It's been very interesting and gratifying to see the article develop. Secondly, are we going for an hydraulic
or a hydraulic
? At the moment it is a 2-2 draw and I feel that the article should be consistent. It appears that KJP1's preference is the "an" one, and as he's doing all the hard work at the moment perhaps that should prevail; speaking as an anonymous IP user who just happens to be passing by I prefer "a" but would not be willing to indulge in fisticuffs over it. I think it's much more important that the article agrees with itself. Best wishes to all
82.34.71.202 (
talk)
13:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I find this, in the Shooting Box subsection, tricky: Armstrong had spent much of his childhood at Rothbury to escape from industrial Newcastle to alleviate his poor health.
- your mileage may vary, but to me the two "to"s read a little awkwardly. I would usually just fix it (I worked for 14 years for a prof who hated people pointing out problems without offering solutions) but I can't see a very obvious solution shouting and waving at me. For example, I wondered about: Armstrong had spent much of his childhood at Rothbury, escaping from industrial Newcastle to alleviate his poor health.
but then someone would be along in five minutes to declare the comma wrong, changing it to Armstrong had spent much of his childhood at Rothbury escaping from industrial Newcastle to alleviate his poor health.
which of course is an entirely different meaning altogether. And so on. I'll keep thinking but if in the meantime someone More Clever With Word Things has a solution, then yes please!
DBaK (
talk)
10:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
DBaK, As well as a photo, an up-to-date guide would be useful. I've used the 1992, Andrew Saint and others, from the last time I went, and I've an earlier one from the 80s. I've just ordered a 2007, Hugh Dixon (?), from eBay but it would be interesting if you had access to anything more modern. As you say, it may have stuff on the Trust's more recent activities, where the article's currently a bit light. KJP1 ( talk) 12:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I feel we might be heading for trouble (albeit minor and sortable trouble but please don't spoil my drama) with Drawing Room, Drawing room, drawing room
and their other buddies. My probably annoying two penn'orth (that's 4.8d in old money, kids!) is that we should have no caps on any of them except as required at the starts of sentences and headers an ting. I might feel differently about the Owl suite or rooms - there I think there is perhaps a good case for capitali{s/z}ation there because it's the proper name, or indeed Proper Name, for the thing; that is, anyone can have a drawing room (if you're posh/old enough!) or a dining room, but my house ain't got no Owl room ... or even Owl Room? But what do you think? Best wishes to all
DBaK (
talk)
18:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I now have the current guidebook (very current: last revised in 2017), still by Dixon. It's possibly not that different from what's in the 2007 Dixon already used here, but this is what it says, under the heading "For all to enjoy", about the acquisition by the NT: In 1977 the house, with 911 acres of land around it, and two farms in the Coquet valley, passed to the Treasury in part-settlement of death-duties. It was then transferred to the National Trust through the auspices of the National Land Fund, aided by a generous gift from the 3rd Lord Armstrong. Substantial help was received from the Historic Buildings Council during the long restoration that followed. The house was first opened to the public in 1979. In 1991 the formal terraced gardens, glasshouses, the original estate manager's house, and parkland were acquired and reunited with the rest of the estate.
So ... does this help? I worry that it does not - please feel free to ask me to check other stuff or whatever I can do that might be useful.
DBaK (
talk)
19:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if other editors have an alternative source for the price of the Millais paintings? Thinking about it, my guess is that Heald has a misprint and that 900 guineas should actually read 9,000. That would mean, using Dixon, that Jephthah cost 3,800 guineas and Chill October 5,200 guineas, 9,000 for the pair. 900 guineas seems extraordinarily cheap, even in 1875. But without a source, that would be OR. KJP1 ( talk) 08:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
A wierd divergence of price directions! Hope that helps. He also has details on Hearts are Trumps, of Armstrong's daughters (also p. 152), now Tate, if you want those. On the others sold in 1910, from the artists above, he only lists a Bonheur Deer Park for £241 10s and a Leighton (apparently bt from Mendel in 1875 for £998) sold for £204 10s. Mendel seems to have been a canny buyer. Johnbod ( talk) 19:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I think I was planning to edit here some time ago. £900 for the pair is clearly wrong. Here is a contemporaneous source: The Art Journal, vol.14 (1875), p.342 which lists the prices realised at the Samuel Mendel sale in 1875: Jephthah £3,990 [which is 3,800 guineas] and Chill October £3,255 [which is 3,100 guineas]. So that is 6,900 guineas for the pair. [original research alert: Did Armstrong leave off a digit? Perhaps a typo or thinko? Or perhaps he did not want to admit the real price? Which is odd as it is a matter of public record. Was there a transcription error? Was it misread by Heald? A printing error?] Is the original published anywhere so we can check?
Chill October was acclaimed at the time; Van Gogh saw the painting at the sale and admired it: he mentions it in at least five letters. There is an interesting article in The Magazine of Art, vol.14 (1891) which it seems describes the Armstrong collection, calling Chill October "the most famous landscape in the collection ... the first and noblest of [Millais'] great landscapes. It would be superfluous to decribe in detail a picture which is known intimately by every British lover of art"(!) . Then, maybe. Now?
The history of the prices is fascinating. Mendel seems to have paid £1,000 for Chill October at the RA summer exhibution in 1871, then sold to Armstrong in 1875 for £3,255 [3,100 guineas], who sold in 1910 for £5,040 [4,800 guineas] to a family that kept it through three generations until it was bought by Lloyd Webber in 1991 for £370,000.
The value of Jephthah just crashed. Mendel paid 4,200 [4,000 guineas] in 1867, then sold to Armstrong in 1875 for £3,990 [3,800 guineas], and Armstrong sold in 1910 for £1,260 (1,200 guineas). It was bought by Charles Fairfax Murray, and sold on his death in 1917 to the notorious dealer William Walker Sampson for just £1,050 [1000 guineas]. (He was a poor Tyneside lad made good, who said he saw the painting as a boy years before and vowed to buy it, but [scandal alert: he was also accused of orchestrating a ring of dealers who would collude to buy paintings at auction for a song and sell them on at a profit].) What happens next is unclear, but one sources says it was left to the National Gallery of Wales by "Miss Isadora Stone" in 1964 (the National Museum of Wales says it was "Isadore Stone", which is an unusual name; possibly the father of the choreographer Paddy Stone.) That somewhat at odds with the 1961 book mentioned above, that says it was sold to the Nat Mus Wales in 1917! Answers on a postcard as to what Jephthah might fetch now.
Tastes change, but the works are both notable so I invite someone to write the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.170 ( talk) 20:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Cragside -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
What is the reason for hot linking Google Books in the sources + using the ISBN mechanism? GB is a commercial book seller, the idea is to not favor one seller over another (eg. Amazon.com) and instead use the ISBN mechanism to give readers a choice. -- Green C 21:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
"The estate provides sanctuary for some of the last red squirrels remaining in Britain.[43]" Yet there are 120,000 in Scotland. What's going on? -- John ( talk) 07:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I wonder what others think of the thumb sizes? Most Featured articles use thumb for horizontal, thumb|upright for vertical ones, and thumb|upright=x to emphasise one or two important or difficult to read ones. By emphasising all, you just emphasise none. -- John ( talk) 14:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to note what I wrote at WP:ERRORS: " William Armstrong, 1st Baron Armstrong ... raised to the peerage in 1887 ... was the first engineer or scientist ever to join the House of Lords." citation needed Ever? Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "scientist" or "engineer". Wasn't Francis Bacon already a scientist when he was ennobled in 1618? (There are some sources that say Lord Kelvin was the first scientist to be ennobled, in 1892, which is again arguable, if you ignore Armstrong and Bacon and say Lord Rosse who "joined the House of Lords" when he inherited his title in 1841...) Stronger ground for "first engineer". I can't think of an earlier one.
Thanks for the prompt reply. I thought you might want to distinguish those who inherited titles from those who were ennobled in their own right. That would knock out Rosse and a number of others, but not Bacon and Kelvin. The article here is more careful to say "first engineer or scientist to be ennobled", but my eye was caught by the main page blurb which uses (used) a looser paraphrase "first engineer or scientist ever to join the House of Lords". I'd argue that Rosse was a scientist when he "joined" the House of Lords by inheriting his title.
In relation to Kelvin, yes he was a few years later, but unlike Armstrong he was also primarily an academic research scientist. Here is a biography which clearly says that Kelvin was the first. [5]. Many other sources make a similar claim: here is another example. [6]. You mention Heald. [7] So we have we competing sources for that claim, as between Armstrong and Kelvin. Why are we stating so plainly that Armstrong was first, without qualification? Are there other sources in favour of Armstrong?
In relation to Bacon, he too was a scientist (as well as other things) and he was ennobled nearly 300 years earlier. Does Heald give any reason for dismissing Bacon as the first scientist to be ennobled?
As I said, I can't find anyone making a better claim than Armstrong to be the first engineer to be ennobled (and there are some sources that say that without adding "or scientist"). I'm sure we can think of reasons why that is the case: engineering not being an organised profession before the late 18th century, social status, lack of a clear candidate, etc. I also suspect Armstrong was not ennobled primarily on account of his engineering or scientific expertise, but rather because he was fantastically successful at selling his machines, and he became very rich and powerful as a result. He was primarily an industrialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.153 ( talk) 08:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
OK so you want a source that explicitly says "Francis Bacon was the first scientist to be ennobled"? It is not sufficient to point to the plain fact that Bacon was a scientist, and he was ennobled in 1618? (Would you settle for one saying he was the first to be knighted, in 1603, as that came a few years before the barony and the viscountcy? Interestingly enough, that claim is also made for Isaac Newton, who like Kelvin was arguably more of an academic scientist than Bacon or Armstrong, given Bacon's activities as a lawyer and politician). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.153 ( talk) 15:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The article mentions the Crown Prince of Afghanistan, the Shah of Persia and the King of Siam, without specifying which. Not sure about the Prince and the Shah, since no dates are given, but the King of Siam in 1897 was Chulalongkorn. On the other hand, the article makes first mention of the Prince and Princess of Wales without identifying them in the text but using piped links to Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark, a practice discouraged by WP:EGG. They are identified seven paragraphs later in the Architecture and description section; perhaps this should be moved to the first occurrence? As for mentioning Chulalongkorn, I'd understand if someone thinks it might be a WP:SYNTH issue, but I think it falls within the spirit of WP:CALC (and there's even a portrait of him hanging in the mansion so there shouldn't be any doubt). -- Paul_012 ( talk) 08:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Our sincere thanks to those editors who kept back the vandals during the article's front page outing. And for the copy edits and corrections. There have also been some very helpful substantive suggestions, regarding the identification of Armstrong's foreign visitors, and the validity of his claim to be the first scientist to receive a peerage. In relation to the latter, I'll put in a footnote, as discussed above, which I hope addresses the concern. KJP1 ( talk) 07:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The hot room in the private Turkish bath at Cragside, Rothbury
Victorian Web - this has a, disappointingly brief, mention. KJP1 ( talk) 06:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Cragside is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2018. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have removed the reference to Cragside containing the tallest tree in England. This was unreferenced, and although it may once have been the case, this article from Countrylife.co.uk lists the 10 tallest trees in Britain - only one of them is in England, and this is at Dunster Woods in Somerset at 60m tall. Feel free to add back if required, but I think the claim should be backed up by a reference or source. J mcquillen ( talk) 10:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. With this edit today KJP1 changed the infobox photo for a much better one which showed less of a big bank and more of the house. This is unarguably an improvement, thanks. The only thing I do feel may have been lost in the change is a bit of context: in the old one by ChrisDown you could see the house at the top of a hill and in a generally somewhat rugged-looking situation, whereas in the new one it's straight on across the forecourt. Looking up and to the right you can see some wooded hill but it's more difficult to absorb the feel of the place from it. Is some sort of compromise possible here? If there were a photo much more of the house which still somehow captured the cragginess, that would be great. I'm not up for a fight over this but just wanted to mention it and see what others thought. Best wishes to all DBaK ( talk) 10:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
washed out- oh yeah, indeed, maybe the original material just isn't right ... I tried lots of filters and couldn't really get any effect much between "Kodakchrome from 50 years ago that your Mum kept on the windowsill" and "Insane Gothic Horror" so I sort of went sheesh and put the kettle on instead ... DBaK ( talk) 10:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The photo we had definitely fails to convey the "magic" of the magician's home. Keep looking! KJP1 ( talk) 21:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
KJP1, Martinevans123 and any other interested parties ... I have been thinking a lot about this photo issue. Last night I watched again the ludicrous but rather wonderful Glorious Gardens from Above episode which features Cragside alongside a couple of other places of spiritual or temporal bliss. Now, the USP of the apparently insane but very charming and knowledgeable person in the balloon is, erm, the balloon. So watching it – rather more carefully because of this Wretched Encyclopaedic Publication™ – I was very struck by how hard the building is to photograph - that is, they've got a balloon and still only had the few stock shots that we have all seen; probably more relevantly, since I guess the balloon cannot legally be flown anywhere that useful, they were clearly using drones for photography a fair old bit and it is from these that I think the better images may have emerged. To cut a long story short, I fear that the best photo of the house – the one we want – can only be taken if you are hovering about 100ft (30.48 guineas in old money, or possibly 95.24; I get confused) above the bridge, because the topography just isn't photo-friendly in that way ... or at least it is not that friendly towards our specific objectives here. I may be wrong (I usually am) but this was my strong impression. I will, though, have another very close look next time I am there. Cheers DBaK ( talk) 18:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Given the house has great historical and great architectural/artistic significance, I'd suggest it needs separate sections, first, one on The History, and then one on The Architecture, furnishings, art etc. Are people ok with that? KJP1 ( talk) 12:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, huge thanks to
KJP1 for all the fantastic, painstaking work on the present expansion. It's been very interesting and gratifying to see the article develop. Secondly, are we going for an hydraulic
or a hydraulic
? At the moment it is a 2-2 draw and I feel that the article should be consistent. It appears that KJP1's preference is the "an" one, and as he's doing all the hard work at the moment perhaps that should prevail; speaking as an anonymous IP user who just happens to be passing by I prefer "a" but would not be willing to indulge in fisticuffs over it. I think it's much more important that the article agrees with itself. Best wishes to all
82.34.71.202 (
talk)
13:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I find this, in the Shooting Box subsection, tricky: Armstrong had spent much of his childhood at Rothbury to escape from industrial Newcastle to alleviate his poor health.
- your mileage may vary, but to me the two "to"s read a little awkwardly. I would usually just fix it (I worked for 14 years for a prof who hated people pointing out problems without offering solutions) but I can't see a very obvious solution shouting and waving at me. For example, I wondered about: Armstrong had spent much of his childhood at Rothbury, escaping from industrial Newcastle to alleviate his poor health.
but then someone would be along in five minutes to declare the comma wrong, changing it to Armstrong had spent much of his childhood at Rothbury escaping from industrial Newcastle to alleviate his poor health.
which of course is an entirely different meaning altogether. And so on. I'll keep thinking but if in the meantime someone More Clever With Word Things has a solution, then yes please!
DBaK (
talk)
10:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
DBaK, As well as a photo, an up-to-date guide would be useful. I've used the 1992, Andrew Saint and others, from the last time I went, and I've an earlier one from the 80s. I've just ordered a 2007, Hugh Dixon (?), from eBay but it would be interesting if you had access to anything more modern. As you say, it may have stuff on the Trust's more recent activities, where the article's currently a bit light. KJP1 ( talk) 12:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I feel we might be heading for trouble (albeit minor and sortable trouble but please don't spoil my drama) with Drawing Room, Drawing room, drawing room
and their other buddies. My probably annoying two penn'orth (that's 4.8d in old money, kids!) is that we should have no caps on any of them except as required at the starts of sentences and headers an ting. I might feel differently about the Owl suite or rooms - there I think there is perhaps a good case for capitali{s/z}ation there because it's the proper name, or indeed Proper Name, for the thing; that is, anyone can have a drawing room (if you're posh/old enough!) or a dining room, but my house ain't got no Owl room ... or even Owl Room? But what do you think? Best wishes to all
DBaK (
talk)
18:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I now have the current guidebook (very current: last revised in 2017), still by Dixon. It's possibly not that different from what's in the 2007 Dixon already used here, but this is what it says, under the heading "For all to enjoy", about the acquisition by the NT: In 1977 the house, with 911 acres of land around it, and two farms in the Coquet valley, passed to the Treasury in part-settlement of death-duties. It was then transferred to the National Trust through the auspices of the National Land Fund, aided by a generous gift from the 3rd Lord Armstrong. Substantial help was received from the Historic Buildings Council during the long restoration that followed. The house was first opened to the public in 1979. In 1991 the formal terraced gardens, glasshouses, the original estate manager's house, and parkland were acquired and reunited with the rest of the estate.
So ... does this help? I worry that it does not - please feel free to ask me to check other stuff or whatever I can do that might be useful.
DBaK (
talk)
19:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if other editors have an alternative source for the price of the Millais paintings? Thinking about it, my guess is that Heald has a misprint and that 900 guineas should actually read 9,000. That would mean, using Dixon, that Jephthah cost 3,800 guineas and Chill October 5,200 guineas, 9,000 for the pair. 900 guineas seems extraordinarily cheap, even in 1875. But without a source, that would be OR. KJP1 ( talk) 08:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
A wierd divergence of price directions! Hope that helps. He also has details on Hearts are Trumps, of Armstrong's daughters (also p. 152), now Tate, if you want those. On the others sold in 1910, from the artists above, he only lists a Bonheur Deer Park for £241 10s and a Leighton (apparently bt from Mendel in 1875 for £998) sold for £204 10s. Mendel seems to have been a canny buyer. Johnbod ( talk) 19:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I think I was planning to edit here some time ago. £900 for the pair is clearly wrong. Here is a contemporaneous source: The Art Journal, vol.14 (1875), p.342 which lists the prices realised at the Samuel Mendel sale in 1875: Jephthah £3,990 [which is 3,800 guineas] and Chill October £3,255 [which is 3,100 guineas]. So that is 6,900 guineas for the pair. [original research alert: Did Armstrong leave off a digit? Perhaps a typo or thinko? Or perhaps he did not want to admit the real price? Which is odd as it is a matter of public record. Was there a transcription error? Was it misread by Heald? A printing error?] Is the original published anywhere so we can check?
Chill October was acclaimed at the time; Van Gogh saw the painting at the sale and admired it: he mentions it in at least five letters. There is an interesting article in The Magazine of Art, vol.14 (1891) which it seems describes the Armstrong collection, calling Chill October "the most famous landscape in the collection ... the first and noblest of [Millais'] great landscapes. It would be superfluous to decribe in detail a picture which is known intimately by every British lover of art"(!) . Then, maybe. Now?
The history of the prices is fascinating. Mendel seems to have paid £1,000 for Chill October at the RA summer exhibution in 1871, then sold to Armstrong in 1875 for £3,255 [3,100 guineas], who sold in 1910 for £5,040 [4,800 guineas] to a family that kept it through three generations until it was bought by Lloyd Webber in 1991 for £370,000.
The value of Jephthah just crashed. Mendel paid 4,200 [4,000 guineas] in 1867, then sold to Armstrong in 1875 for £3,990 [3,800 guineas], and Armstrong sold in 1910 for £1,260 (1,200 guineas). It was bought by Charles Fairfax Murray, and sold on his death in 1917 to the notorious dealer William Walker Sampson for just £1,050 [1000 guineas]. (He was a poor Tyneside lad made good, who said he saw the painting as a boy years before and vowed to buy it, but [scandal alert: he was also accused of orchestrating a ring of dealers who would collude to buy paintings at auction for a song and sell them on at a profit].) What happens next is unclear, but one sources says it was left to the National Gallery of Wales by "Miss Isadora Stone" in 1964 (the National Museum of Wales says it was "Isadore Stone", which is an unusual name; possibly the father of the choreographer Paddy Stone.) That somewhat at odds with the 1961 book mentioned above, that says it was sold to the Nat Mus Wales in 1917! Answers on a postcard as to what Jephthah might fetch now.
Tastes change, but the works are both notable so I invite someone to write the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.170 ( talk) 20:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Cragside -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
What is the reason for hot linking Google Books in the sources + using the ISBN mechanism? GB is a commercial book seller, the idea is to not favor one seller over another (eg. Amazon.com) and instead use the ISBN mechanism to give readers a choice. -- Green C 21:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
"The estate provides sanctuary for some of the last red squirrels remaining in Britain.[43]" Yet there are 120,000 in Scotland. What's going on? -- John ( talk) 07:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I wonder what others think of the thumb sizes? Most Featured articles use thumb for horizontal, thumb|upright for vertical ones, and thumb|upright=x to emphasise one or two important or difficult to read ones. By emphasising all, you just emphasise none. -- John ( talk) 14:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to note what I wrote at WP:ERRORS: " William Armstrong, 1st Baron Armstrong ... raised to the peerage in 1887 ... was the first engineer or scientist ever to join the House of Lords." citation needed Ever? Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "scientist" or "engineer". Wasn't Francis Bacon already a scientist when he was ennobled in 1618? (There are some sources that say Lord Kelvin was the first scientist to be ennobled, in 1892, which is again arguable, if you ignore Armstrong and Bacon and say Lord Rosse who "joined the House of Lords" when he inherited his title in 1841...) Stronger ground for "first engineer". I can't think of an earlier one.
Thanks for the prompt reply. I thought you might want to distinguish those who inherited titles from those who were ennobled in their own right. That would knock out Rosse and a number of others, but not Bacon and Kelvin. The article here is more careful to say "first engineer or scientist to be ennobled", but my eye was caught by the main page blurb which uses (used) a looser paraphrase "first engineer or scientist ever to join the House of Lords". I'd argue that Rosse was a scientist when he "joined" the House of Lords by inheriting his title.
In relation to Kelvin, yes he was a few years later, but unlike Armstrong he was also primarily an academic research scientist. Here is a biography which clearly says that Kelvin was the first. [5]. Many other sources make a similar claim: here is another example. [6]. You mention Heald. [7] So we have we competing sources for that claim, as between Armstrong and Kelvin. Why are we stating so plainly that Armstrong was first, without qualification? Are there other sources in favour of Armstrong?
In relation to Bacon, he too was a scientist (as well as other things) and he was ennobled nearly 300 years earlier. Does Heald give any reason for dismissing Bacon as the first scientist to be ennobled?
As I said, I can't find anyone making a better claim than Armstrong to be the first engineer to be ennobled (and there are some sources that say that without adding "or scientist"). I'm sure we can think of reasons why that is the case: engineering not being an organised profession before the late 18th century, social status, lack of a clear candidate, etc. I also suspect Armstrong was not ennobled primarily on account of his engineering or scientific expertise, but rather because he was fantastically successful at selling his machines, and he became very rich and powerful as a result. He was primarily an industrialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.153 ( talk) 08:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
OK so you want a source that explicitly says "Francis Bacon was the first scientist to be ennobled"? It is not sufficient to point to the plain fact that Bacon was a scientist, and he was ennobled in 1618? (Would you settle for one saying he was the first to be knighted, in 1603, as that came a few years before the barony and the viscountcy? Interestingly enough, that claim is also made for Isaac Newton, who like Kelvin was arguably more of an academic scientist than Bacon or Armstrong, given Bacon's activities as a lawyer and politician). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.153 ( talk) 15:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The article mentions the Crown Prince of Afghanistan, the Shah of Persia and the King of Siam, without specifying which. Not sure about the Prince and the Shah, since no dates are given, but the King of Siam in 1897 was Chulalongkorn. On the other hand, the article makes first mention of the Prince and Princess of Wales without identifying them in the text but using piped links to Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark, a practice discouraged by WP:EGG. They are identified seven paragraphs later in the Architecture and description section; perhaps this should be moved to the first occurrence? As for mentioning Chulalongkorn, I'd understand if someone thinks it might be a WP:SYNTH issue, but I think it falls within the spirit of WP:CALC (and there's even a portrait of him hanging in the mansion so there shouldn't be any doubt). -- Paul_012 ( talk) 08:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Our sincere thanks to those editors who kept back the vandals during the article's front page outing. And for the copy edits and corrections. There have also been some very helpful substantive suggestions, regarding the identification of Armstrong's foreign visitors, and the validity of his claim to be the first scientist to receive a peerage. In relation to the latter, I'll put in a footnote, as discussed above, which I hope addresses the concern. KJP1 ( talk) 07:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The hot room in the private Turkish bath at Cragside, Rothbury
Victorian Web - this has a, disappointingly brief, mention. KJP1 ( talk) 06:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)