This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It seems a bit odd to talk of the Somerset family's fortune being "destroyed", as this article does, when the current Duke ranks 581st on the Sunday Times Rich List 2008, with an estimated wealth of £135m. Would "diminished" be a more appropriate wording? KJP1 ( talk) 14:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
User:KJP1 recently changed the caption for the infobox image to "not very impressive externally". I removed the caption with the summary "delete unsuitable caption" and KJP1 has restored it with the summary "Unclear as to its inappropriateness. Please discuss on the Talkpage, referencing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions".
My main reason for judging the caption as unsuitable is that it is a dismissive comment that is an inadequate summing up of the building. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions lists the following criteria for a good caption:
This caption does not (1) clearly identify the subject or (3) the picture's relevance to the article. It does not (4) provide context for the picture. It definitely does not (5) draw the reader into the article, on the contrary, it suggests that this is a boring building not worth the reader's attention.
The source of the quototion is not given in the caption, but the main text attributes it to "Local historian Keith Kissack". Kissack is not known as an architectural critic, and putting his aesthetic assessment here gives it undue prominance. A quote from John Newman would be preferable, but I don't see anything suitable in his Gwent/Monmouthshire book ( Newman, John (1 March 2000). Gwent/Monmouthshire. Yale University Press. pp. 391–392. ISBN 978-0-300-09630-9.).
Placed at it is, this appears to be an attempt to sum up the building and it does not adequately do so. We would not want this in a biographical article and we should not put it here. No caption is needed as the picture is a simple depiction of the subject of the article. Verbcatcher ( talk) 17:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, we do at least get a credit here, [1]. KJP1 ( talk) 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
To anyone that attended this school in the late 80s early 90s and know what exactly went on there... you are not alone in thinking why there is no information regarding the abuse we went through at this school. Feel free to reach out if anyone needs help or is willing to get to the bottom of what we went through! 2A02:C7C:5877:BC00:1D6B:8C2C:FED4:A151 ( talk) 12:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It seems a bit odd to talk of the Somerset family's fortune being "destroyed", as this article does, when the current Duke ranks 581st on the Sunday Times Rich List 2008, with an estimated wealth of £135m. Would "diminished" be a more appropriate wording? KJP1 ( talk) 14:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
User:KJP1 recently changed the caption for the infobox image to "not very impressive externally". I removed the caption with the summary "delete unsuitable caption" and KJP1 has restored it with the summary "Unclear as to its inappropriateness. Please discuss on the Talkpage, referencing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions".
My main reason for judging the caption as unsuitable is that it is a dismissive comment that is an inadequate summing up of the building. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions lists the following criteria for a good caption:
This caption does not (1) clearly identify the subject or (3) the picture's relevance to the article. It does not (4) provide context for the picture. It definitely does not (5) draw the reader into the article, on the contrary, it suggests that this is a boring building not worth the reader's attention.
The source of the quototion is not given in the caption, but the main text attributes it to "Local historian Keith Kissack". Kissack is not known as an architectural critic, and putting his aesthetic assessment here gives it undue prominance. A quote from John Newman would be preferable, but I don't see anything suitable in his Gwent/Monmouthshire book ( Newman, John (1 March 2000). Gwent/Monmouthshire. Yale University Press. pp. 391–392. ISBN 978-0-300-09630-9.).
Placed at it is, this appears to be an attempt to sum up the building and it does not adequately do so. We would not want this in a biographical article and we should not put it here. No caption is needed as the picture is a simple depiction of the subject of the article. Verbcatcher ( talk) 17:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, we do at least get a credit here, [1]. KJP1 ( talk) 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
To anyone that attended this school in the late 80s early 90s and know what exactly went on there... you are not alone in thinking why there is no information regarding the abuse we went through at this school. Feel free to reach out if anyone needs help or is willing to get to the bottom of what we went through! 2A02:C7C:5877:BC00:1D6B:8C2C:FED4:A151 ( talk) 12:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)