![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
It strikes me that the comment about the Cobhams' "generosity" is rather POV; I certainly know a number of people who are of the opinion that Lord C would be delighted to see the thing fall down, though of course that's POV the other way. (I live in Bewdley, and can see the obelisk from a few hundred yards from my house.) I keep meaning to rewrite this anyway, if I can find a free photo... Loganberry ( Talk) 04:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I do not think that this article needs expanding; it is reasonably complete as it is; I would recommend the removal of that designation. There is a separate article on Wychbury Hill and another on Hagley. Possibly, a wider articel on the landscaping of the park around Hagley Hall might be useful, but perhaps it would be better as an expansion of the article on Hagley Hall. Peterkingiron 21:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Scaffolding was put round it in March, and word is it's being fully repaired. The consensus it should be left to fall down seems to be over, but I can't find a reliable source saying it's being repaired, so I left the article as it is. 87.80.97.137 ( talk) 11:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that the article is moved to Hagley Obelisk rather than Wychbury Obelisk because although both names are used neither is particularly common.
However it is much better known in architecture and literary circles by a name with Hagley in it thanks to its connection with the rest of the Hagley Hall park lands and associated follies which were considered by the lovers of the Picturesque to be worth fawning over. It also has connections under that name to the poet William Shenstone and his house the Leasowes. -- PBS ( talk) 20:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
It strikes me that the comment about the Cobhams' "generosity" is rather POV; I certainly know a number of people who are of the opinion that Lord C would be delighted to see the thing fall down, though of course that's POV the other way. (I live in Bewdley, and can see the obelisk from a few hundred yards from my house.) I keep meaning to rewrite this anyway, if I can find a free photo... Loganberry ( Talk) 04:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I do not think that this article needs expanding; it is reasonably complete as it is; I would recommend the removal of that designation. There is a separate article on Wychbury Hill and another on Hagley. Possibly, a wider articel on the landscaping of the park around Hagley Hall might be useful, but perhaps it would be better as an expansion of the article on Hagley Hall. Peterkingiron 21:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Scaffolding was put round it in March, and word is it's being fully repaired. The consensus it should be left to fall down seems to be over, but I can't find a reliable source saying it's being repaired, so I left the article as it is. 87.80.97.137 ( talk) 11:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that the article is moved to Hagley Obelisk rather than Wychbury Obelisk because although both names are used neither is particularly common.
However it is much better known in architecture and literary circles by a name with Hagley in it thanks to its connection with the rest of the Hagley Hall park lands and associated follies which were considered by the lovers of the Picturesque to be worth fawning over. It also has connections under that name to the poet William Shenstone and his house the Leasowes. -- PBS ( talk) 20:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)