Bramshill House 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 November 16, 2019. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Very bad idea. The Police Staff College is an institution (is this the same as or only part of the Central Police Training and Development Authority?) and Bramshill House is an historic house. The college is housed in more than just the house and the house has a history much more extensive than that of the college. Verica Atrebatum 09:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Bramshill is well known as a reputedly haunted house. The ghosts/hauntings may or may not be 'rubbish'. This is down to your
point of view, a disussion which has no place here. Hence the use of 'reported' and 'reputed'. However, the fact that the ghost sitings/hauntings have been reported is itself
of note, particularly those with a basis in legend. Although the sitings themselves eventually become part of folklore. The source quoted is not 'questionable' as defined at
Wikipedia:Verifiability:
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."
This aspect of Bramshill should, perhaps, not be given too much emphasis, but a short paragraph, particularly including a link to the
Legend of the Mistletoe Bough page, is certainly appropriate and ensures the entry does not become un-encyclopaedic. Without links from its supposed locations, the Mistletoe Bough page would be in danger of beoming orphaned.
Walgamanus (
talk) 11:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot of good happening here and I don't want to interfere and edit, but one of two small nitpicks
The source is segment VIII, "Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales", of a serialised book by Rose G. Kingsley: The Children of Westminster Abbey. The entire book is OCLC 65537506. The index listing can be found on page ix at the start of the bound volume of Wide Awake - I searched Rose G. Kingsley. Judging by the OCLC listing, Kingsley should be credited as sole author of the contribution, the others presumably being editors of the periodical. This is a good illustration of the kind of situation that makes me prefer not to use citation templates, but it's clearly a case of contribution within a periodical, the challenge being to get the eventual book's title in there. (And find the possible bound-in second title page with the date of the appropriate segment, but I believe the date preceding that table of contents applies.) Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 12:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley ( talk) 12:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is going to be difficult. In truth, the article seems to me of Featured Article quality, let alone Good Article, and I shall have no problem in confirming that it meets all the GA criteria. The two black and white Country Life 1923 images might, I suspect, attract flak at FAC, but they're in Commons, which is good enough for me here.
Before I cut the ribbon I offer you a few minor quibbles and queries. None are important enough to affect GA status, but you might like to ponder:
Those are my few quibbles. Nothing to frighten the horses. Over to you. I shan't bother putting the article on hold. – Tim riley ( talk) 08:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou for the prompt review, I've addressed your points. Yes, Eric has very high standards for GAs which is a good thing as it often means they're on course for FA! I'm glad I waited on this. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
As I suspected, an easy task for the reviewer. Nothing borderline about this article. It gives me much pleasure to promote it. Tim riley ( talk) 17:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes it isn't quite ready for FAC yet but clearly has potential, and hopefully Yngva can find some more details over the next few weeks. Thanks for the review Tim!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I added an External Link to the estate agent handling the sale, Knight Frank—more specifically, to the page on their website that gives details about the property: Bramshill, Bramshill, Hook, Hampshire, RG27 UK. I was reverted by another IP on the grounds that it was "spam". I put the link back because of the info it has about the property, with lots of photos. When you open the link, you can also download a 40-page pdf brochure that contains a wealth of information about the property. I'd like to hear opinions from other interested parties on whether the EL should stay or go. I will abide by the consensus here. Thanks. -- 108.45.72.196 ( talk) 23:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The flurry of recent edits is something to cheer about, but also presents some issues. Theramin, while we thank you for this edit, you also introduce a lot of unverified material and a ton of bare URLs in place of proper references. I urge contributors to honor what we're trying to do here, which is present properly verified material in a consistent format. Cleanup afterward is possible, but it's a drag. Drmies ( talk) 01:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Excellent, Yng, ask Jmabel or Calliopjen1. It is 1883 the Cope book (I saw it in google books I think)? Easily PD but you may want to check with them. Look forward to seeing your work on this!! Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 21:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I am hanging back from editing as there are a lot of editors currently doing good thing and I don't like interfering with work in progress; however, the images look very cluttered and, in my view, probably a few want pruning out - for instance; is there a need for two near identical images of the south front (one in lead and one further down)? There's also a third image of that facade in what appears to be a picture of a speed hump at the bottom of the page. Furthermore, the romanticised Victorian images of what may or may not have happened in the 16th century are really not telling us a lot either - these sort of pictures are fine if nothing better is available, but that is not the case here. Giano 09:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Which sources are we relying on for describing the orientation of the house and its façades?
For the sake of clarity and accuracy, I think we should probably adopt the usage of English Heritage: the main entrance and main front is to the southwest, and the long terrace front is to the southeast. But what do Pevsner and Cope say? -- Theramin ( talk) 01:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Currently we are linking the version on Google Books, which comes up for me (in the UK, not logged into my Google account—I think I’ve got one somewhere) as ‘No ebook available’. It would seem sensible, perhaps, either to link directly to the pdf at the British Library [9], or to the copy of that which I’ve uploaded to Commons which is at File:Bramshill, its history and architecture (by Sir William H. Cope).pdf . The only real advantage of linking to the version on Commons is that I am not sure how stable the BL url is intended to be, and indeed, I am not entirely sure whether their pdfs are available worldwide (though I imagine they are). Still, I’ve edited the article for now to link to Commons.
Incidentally, if copies of images from the book are wanted, the pdf will not be the best source. Better to go to the catalogue entry, click on ‘I want this’ and then click the button glossed as ‘Digital item; opens in the Library's itemVIEWER (good for images)’. This viewer is rather slow, but presents much higher resolution page images than those stored in the pdf. (At least, it usually does. I haven’t been able to check it with this text as yesterday and today the viewer hasn’t been working at all—at least on my ageing Mac….)
Great work on this article, by the way: congrats to all involved! Ian Spackman ( talk) 12:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Great job. You're worrying unnecessarily I think. 1883 is definitely public domain. Pity we can't get hold of high quality images, but a couple of these copped certainly help improve it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bramshill 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bramshill 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Not wanting to mess around with this splendid article while it enjoys its well-deserved day in the sun, but I wonder if the Architecture (Exterior) section would benefit from a little updating. The revised Hampshire Pevsner; Hampshire: Winchester and the North, isbn 9780300120844, {{sfn|Bullen|Crook|Hubbuck|Pevsner|2010|p=197}}, suggests "Richard Goodridge, mason, (as) responsible for its construction, if not for its design". Interestingly, it makes no mention of John Thorpe. I shall make this addition along, "recent research suggests..." lines, when the TFA is over, unless there are any concerns. KJP1 ( talk) 09:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Bramshill House 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 November 16, 2019. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Very bad idea. The Police Staff College is an institution (is this the same as or only part of the Central Police Training and Development Authority?) and Bramshill House is an historic house. The college is housed in more than just the house and the house has a history much more extensive than that of the college. Verica Atrebatum 09:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Bramshill is well known as a reputedly haunted house. The ghosts/hauntings may or may not be 'rubbish'. This is down to your
point of view, a disussion which has no place here. Hence the use of 'reported' and 'reputed'. However, the fact that the ghost sitings/hauntings have been reported is itself
of note, particularly those with a basis in legend. Although the sitings themselves eventually become part of folklore. The source quoted is not 'questionable' as defined at
Wikipedia:Verifiability:
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."
This aspect of Bramshill should, perhaps, not be given too much emphasis, but a short paragraph, particularly including a link to the
Legend of the Mistletoe Bough page, is certainly appropriate and ensures the entry does not become un-encyclopaedic. Without links from its supposed locations, the Mistletoe Bough page would be in danger of beoming orphaned.
Walgamanus (
talk) 11:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot of good happening here and I don't want to interfere and edit, but one of two small nitpicks
The source is segment VIII, "Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales", of a serialised book by Rose G. Kingsley: The Children of Westminster Abbey. The entire book is OCLC 65537506. The index listing can be found on page ix at the start of the bound volume of Wide Awake - I searched Rose G. Kingsley. Judging by the OCLC listing, Kingsley should be credited as sole author of the contribution, the others presumably being editors of the periodical. This is a good illustration of the kind of situation that makes me prefer not to use citation templates, but it's clearly a case of contribution within a periodical, the challenge being to get the eventual book's title in there. (And find the possible bound-in second title page with the date of the appropriate segment, but I believe the date preceding that table of contents applies.) Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 12:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley ( talk) 12:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is going to be difficult. In truth, the article seems to me of Featured Article quality, let alone Good Article, and I shall have no problem in confirming that it meets all the GA criteria. The two black and white Country Life 1923 images might, I suspect, attract flak at FAC, but they're in Commons, which is good enough for me here.
Before I cut the ribbon I offer you a few minor quibbles and queries. None are important enough to affect GA status, but you might like to ponder:
Those are my few quibbles. Nothing to frighten the horses. Over to you. I shan't bother putting the article on hold. – Tim riley ( talk) 08:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou for the prompt review, I've addressed your points. Yes, Eric has very high standards for GAs which is a good thing as it often means they're on course for FA! I'm glad I waited on this. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
As I suspected, an easy task for the reviewer. Nothing borderline about this article. It gives me much pleasure to promote it. Tim riley ( talk) 17:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes it isn't quite ready for FAC yet but clearly has potential, and hopefully Yngva can find some more details over the next few weeks. Thanks for the review Tim!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I added an External Link to the estate agent handling the sale, Knight Frank—more specifically, to the page on their website that gives details about the property: Bramshill, Bramshill, Hook, Hampshire, RG27 UK. I was reverted by another IP on the grounds that it was "spam". I put the link back because of the info it has about the property, with lots of photos. When you open the link, you can also download a 40-page pdf brochure that contains a wealth of information about the property. I'd like to hear opinions from other interested parties on whether the EL should stay or go. I will abide by the consensus here. Thanks. -- 108.45.72.196 ( talk) 23:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The flurry of recent edits is something to cheer about, but also presents some issues. Theramin, while we thank you for this edit, you also introduce a lot of unverified material and a ton of bare URLs in place of proper references. I urge contributors to honor what we're trying to do here, which is present properly verified material in a consistent format. Cleanup afterward is possible, but it's a drag. Drmies ( talk) 01:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Excellent, Yng, ask Jmabel or Calliopjen1. It is 1883 the Cope book (I saw it in google books I think)? Easily PD but you may want to check with them. Look forward to seeing your work on this!! Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 21:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I am hanging back from editing as there are a lot of editors currently doing good thing and I don't like interfering with work in progress; however, the images look very cluttered and, in my view, probably a few want pruning out - for instance; is there a need for two near identical images of the south front (one in lead and one further down)? There's also a third image of that facade in what appears to be a picture of a speed hump at the bottom of the page. Furthermore, the romanticised Victorian images of what may or may not have happened in the 16th century are really not telling us a lot either - these sort of pictures are fine if nothing better is available, but that is not the case here. Giano 09:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Which sources are we relying on for describing the orientation of the house and its façades?
For the sake of clarity and accuracy, I think we should probably adopt the usage of English Heritage: the main entrance and main front is to the southwest, and the long terrace front is to the southeast. But what do Pevsner and Cope say? -- Theramin ( talk) 01:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Currently we are linking the version on Google Books, which comes up for me (in the UK, not logged into my Google account—I think I’ve got one somewhere) as ‘No ebook available’. It would seem sensible, perhaps, either to link directly to the pdf at the British Library [9], or to the copy of that which I’ve uploaded to Commons which is at File:Bramshill, its history and architecture (by Sir William H. Cope).pdf . The only real advantage of linking to the version on Commons is that I am not sure how stable the BL url is intended to be, and indeed, I am not entirely sure whether their pdfs are available worldwide (though I imagine they are). Still, I’ve edited the article for now to link to Commons.
Incidentally, if copies of images from the book are wanted, the pdf will not be the best source. Better to go to the catalogue entry, click on ‘I want this’ and then click the button glossed as ‘Digital item; opens in the Library's itemVIEWER (good for images)’. This viewer is rather slow, but presents much higher resolution page images than those stored in the pdf. (At least, it usually does. I haven’t been able to check it with this text as yesterday and today the viewer hasn’t been working at all—at least on my ageing Mac….)
Great work on this article, by the way: congrats to all involved! Ian Spackman ( talk) 12:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Great job. You're worrying unnecessarily I think. 1883 is definitely public domain. Pity we can't get hold of high quality images, but a couple of these copped certainly help improve it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bramshill 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bramshill 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Not wanting to mess around with this splendid article while it enjoys its well-deserved day in the sun, but I wonder if the Architecture (Exterior) section would benefit from a little updating. The revised Hampshire Pevsner; Hampshire: Winchester and the North, isbn 9780300120844, {{sfn|Bullen|Crook|Hubbuck|Pevsner|2010|p=197}}, suggests "Richard Goodridge, mason, (as) responsible for its construction, if not for its design". Interestingly, it makes no mention of John Thorpe. I shall make this addition along, "recent research suggests..." lines, when the TFA is over, unless there are any concerns. KJP1 ( talk) 09:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)