Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been significantly expanded over the last year to include much more info about the house and its collection, as well as updating the family history with more-recent research. Guidance on what else is needed to achieve a higher quality rating (GA) is greatly appreciated
Thanks, Isaksenk ( talk) 11:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Isaksenk: I am not an expert on this topic, so consider my comments just as some general suggestions. Just mention whether you plan to nominate it for GA, A class or FA?
As Duchess and consort to a very ....... kept her tea secure in a “Japan box” in her adjoining Private Closet.is based on a single reference. It is always advisable for article to have various in-line citations, especially for claims that are likely to be challenged. The entire article has 35 references, which may be less considering the length of article.
Can't think how I've overlooked this PR. I'll be back tomorrow or thereabouts after a thorough read-through. Tim riley talk 18:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments on the History sections:
You are very fond of the word "significant", seemingly as a posh synonym for "big", "major" or "important". It is a pity to water down the sense of a useful word: if you ask yourself "what did it signify?" before using it, you will find it popping up less often. What, for instance, did the "significant repairs … to the roof" signify?
With so many paragraphs lacking citations the article hasn't a chance at GAN or FAC as it stands. If you put that right, there doesn't seem much else wrong, so far as the History section is concerned. The few drafting points, above, don't add up to much, and I think you have the right level of detail throughout – full but not excessive. I'll hold off commenting on the later sections of the article for now, to give you time to sort out the citations. Tim riley talk 07:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Kavyansh.Singh and @ Tim riley - just wanted to thank you both for taking the time to review this page. On behalf of the team of HH volunteers whom I represent, we really appreciate your advice to improve the quality of the work. We recognise that citations are key and are working to incorporate those into the text. One question - the Rowell book was the primary source of our efforts, as it represents the latest in academic-level research on the house and collections. We recognise it's always best to rely on a range of sources but in this case, Rowell is considered the gold standard at present. Would a seeming over-reliance on one source hamper the ability to achieve a higher article rating? Appreciate your insight here, thanks.
To add my two-penn'orth about Rowell (or I suppose my four-pennorth as I'm having two goes): first, you can't just cite the whole book as you have at refs 1 a-z: each citation needs a page number so that anyone wanting to do so can compare what you have written with what the source says. The same goes for all the other books – Pritchard, the NT book etc – to which you have multiple citations. Secondly, reliance on a single major source tends to raise eyebrows but I don't think you'll be accused of that, with several other sources cited extensively, though such extra sources as Kavyansh Singh suggests are all to the good. I'd just add (making it my six-penn'orth) that Further reading should contain only books you don't refer to in your main text. (And if they're not worth referring to in the text why are they listed at all, my Wikipedia mentor used to ask.) The books you use as sources should have their bibliographical details in the main references section or (I think preferably, though others don't) in their own "Sources" section: see here for a top-class example of citation and bibliography, and indeed of everything else. Tim riley talk 10:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I have also missed this, for which apologies. First off, it is an excellent, and detailed, article. Congratulations to all who have worked on it. With Featured Article status your aim, the obvious immediate weakness is the lack of citations, as editors above have already pointed out. Wholly uncited paragraphs, or those with a single cite at the end, will very likely cause problems. And there are a wider range of sources available. Rowell’s is indeed a superb, and gorgeous, study and it is about the most recent work. But as a major work of architecture, there are many other works which cover Ham. The HE listing is oddly brief, but Pevsner has a full entry and I’m sure I can find multiple references in other works on my shelves. RL is busy just now, but give me a while and I shall see what else I can find. I’ll also seek the views of a couple of other editors who both have great experience with architecture articles. The other immediately obvious gap is the absence of a house plan. The best draughtsman for these that I know is sadly retired, but there may be other ways forward. In the meantime, good luck with it, and PEPPER IT WITH CITES! KJP1 ( talk) 21:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @KJP1 I really do appreciate the time you've taken to read & advise! As you can see I'm slowly working to sort out the references, but with only a scattered hour or so after work in the evenings, it's a bit slow. :-) I've wrestled all the Rowell references into good order, and my next steps are as follows:
So, bear with my sloth-like pace, and do send more advice as you see fit - thanks!
This one, currently Ref. 43, also needs work. It currently links to the entry page for the NT Collection, which is enormous. It really needs to go to the relevant page of the individual item, as I've done for Ref.42, the Countess portrait. Otherwise readers have to do their own searches, which isn't really on! I shall attempt the others if I have time.
KJP1 (
talk)
11:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello @ KJP1, @ Kavyansh.Singh and @ Tim riley, I've spent this month working on all of your kind feedback, alongside the improvements you have made. The referencing has been bolstered, and I have also tried to streamline the language and punctuation for readability. I'd value any feedback you might offer on whether I need to do more in any of those areas, or if I should focus my efforts on some other aspect of the article. Appreciate your experience and insight. Thanks Isaksenk ( talk) 18:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been significantly expanded over the last year to include much more info about the house and its collection, as well as updating the family history with more-recent research. Guidance on what else is needed to achieve a higher quality rating (GA) is greatly appreciated
Thanks, Isaksenk ( talk) 11:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Isaksenk: I am not an expert on this topic, so consider my comments just as some general suggestions. Just mention whether you plan to nominate it for GA, A class or FA?
As Duchess and consort to a very ....... kept her tea secure in a “Japan box” in her adjoining Private Closet.is based on a single reference. It is always advisable for article to have various in-line citations, especially for claims that are likely to be challenged. The entire article has 35 references, which may be less considering the length of article.
Can't think how I've overlooked this PR. I'll be back tomorrow or thereabouts after a thorough read-through. Tim riley talk 18:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments on the History sections:
You are very fond of the word "significant", seemingly as a posh synonym for "big", "major" or "important". It is a pity to water down the sense of a useful word: if you ask yourself "what did it signify?" before using it, you will find it popping up less often. What, for instance, did the "significant repairs … to the roof" signify?
With so many paragraphs lacking citations the article hasn't a chance at GAN or FAC as it stands. If you put that right, there doesn't seem much else wrong, so far as the History section is concerned. The few drafting points, above, don't add up to much, and I think you have the right level of detail throughout – full but not excessive. I'll hold off commenting on the later sections of the article for now, to give you time to sort out the citations. Tim riley talk 07:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Kavyansh.Singh and @ Tim riley - just wanted to thank you both for taking the time to review this page. On behalf of the team of HH volunteers whom I represent, we really appreciate your advice to improve the quality of the work. We recognise that citations are key and are working to incorporate those into the text. One question - the Rowell book was the primary source of our efforts, as it represents the latest in academic-level research on the house and collections. We recognise it's always best to rely on a range of sources but in this case, Rowell is considered the gold standard at present. Would a seeming over-reliance on one source hamper the ability to achieve a higher article rating? Appreciate your insight here, thanks.
To add my two-penn'orth about Rowell (or I suppose my four-pennorth as I'm having two goes): first, you can't just cite the whole book as you have at refs 1 a-z: each citation needs a page number so that anyone wanting to do so can compare what you have written with what the source says. The same goes for all the other books – Pritchard, the NT book etc – to which you have multiple citations. Secondly, reliance on a single major source tends to raise eyebrows but I don't think you'll be accused of that, with several other sources cited extensively, though such extra sources as Kavyansh Singh suggests are all to the good. I'd just add (making it my six-penn'orth) that Further reading should contain only books you don't refer to in your main text. (And if they're not worth referring to in the text why are they listed at all, my Wikipedia mentor used to ask.) The books you use as sources should have their bibliographical details in the main references section or (I think preferably, though others don't) in their own "Sources" section: see here for a top-class example of citation and bibliography, and indeed of everything else. Tim riley talk 10:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I have also missed this, for which apologies. First off, it is an excellent, and detailed, article. Congratulations to all who have worked on it. With Featured Article status your aim, the obvious immediate weakness is the lack of citations, as editors above have already pointed out. Wholly uncited paragraphs, or those with a single cite at the end, will very likely cause problems. And there are a wider range of sources available. Rowell’s is indeed a superb, and gorgeous, study and it is about the most recent work. But as a major work of architecture, there are many other works which cover Ham. The HE listing is oddly brief, but Pevsner has a full entry and I’m sure I can find multiple references in other works on my shelves. RL is busy just now, but give me a while and I shall see what else I can find. I’ll also seek the views of a couple of other editors who both have great experience with architecture articles. The other immediately obvious gap is the absence of a house plan. The best draughtsman for these that I know is sadly retired, but there may be other ways forward. In the meantime, good luck with it, and PEPPER IT WITH CITES! KJP1 ( talk) 21:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @KJP1 I really do appreciate the time you've taken to read & advise! As you can see I'm slowly working to sort out the references, but with only a scattered hour or so after work in the evenings, it's a bit slow. :-) I've wrestled all the Rowell references into good order, and my next steps are as follows:
So, bear with my sloth-like pace, and do send more advice as you see fit - thanks!
This one, currently Ref. 43, also needs work. It currently links to the entry page for the NT Collection, which is enormous. It really needs to go to the relevant page of the individual item, as I've done for Ref.42, the Countess portrait. Otherwise readers have to do their own searches, which isn't really on! I shall attempt the others if I have time.
KJP1 (
talk)
11:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello @ KJP1, @ Kavyansh.Singh and @ Tim riley, I've spent this month working on all of your kind feedback, alongside the improvements you have made. The referencing has been bolstered, and I have also tried to streamline the language and punctuation for readability. I'd value any feedback you might offer on whether I need to do more in any of those areas, or if I should focus my efforts on some other aspect of the article. Appreciate your experience and insight. Thanks Isaksenk ( talk) 18:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)