# Talk:Capesthorne Hall

The stub needs to be considerably expanded.
It should make use of sections.
Photos need to be added.
References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)
Peter I. Vardy 14:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Capesthorne Hall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 14:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

My main points including the trimming of the lead and several others have already been addressed. Giving another read but unlikely to find much.

Lead
"The orangery was replaced by a large conservatory designed by Joseph Paxton" -you might mention the date this was added.
Approximate date added.
"There were further alterations later in the 19th century. " -you could also be more specific here.
Example added.
Link Red Cross?
Done.
"Outside this on each side are two-storey service blocks that project forward," -isn't there an architectural term for that sort of design?
None that I know, except for the partial formation of a courtyard.
"The ground-floor public rooms include a Sculpture Gallery. " -just the one worth mentioning? The "include" seems to set up naming quite a few...
Added more, and removed the capitalisation from "sculpture gallery" (although it is appropriate later).
Bedrooms = The bedrooms (definite article)
Done.
"A particularly notable listed structure in the grounds is the private chapel that is contemporaneous with the hall, with its elaborate gates and gate piers." -same architect/builder? You could perhaps be more specific with its status, II or II* or whatever.
Expanded by addition of architect and grades of listing.  Also added that the hall itself is Grade II* listed, which I had omitted. (Perhaps over-pruned the lead?)
--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Just about fine, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
History
You might merge "The site of this house is marked by a brick column in the grounds. " with the preceding sentence to avoid repetition of "site" and improve flow.
Done.  Is the referencing still OK?
"Davies Davenport's grandson (also called Davies Davenport) improved and extended the house, with the addition of a single-storey orangery to the southwest, and a drawing room to the northwest. " -do we know when?
The sources available to me do not say.
" During his ownership the saloon was remodelled in 1879 and the chapel in 1884. " ", as was" would fit better than and here I think.
Done.
Link Red Cross?
Lined in the lead.
Yes, but the norm is to link once in lead and once in the body of the article..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No mention of post war owners and developments, current owner etc?
The official website is a little coy about this.  I've added the current ownership (which I know is correct (OR!)) and a couple of links that I think are OK. (I also think that E. B. Watts is Lady B-D.)
--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Architecture
You might link "ashlar".
Already linked.
two storey = two-storey, not sure where you've added one in " three-light" though. Shouldn't it be triple anyway? I'm not quite sure what you mean by three-light and single-light anyway? Can you be clearer?
Missing hyphen added.  When a window is divided into sections by mullions, the resulting number of sections is known as "lights".  So two mullions would result in a three-light window;  this is a very commonly-used architectural description.  To explain it in the text would make it complicated.  But I could do it in a footnote, if you feel that is necessary.
@Peter I. Vardy: Don't worry about it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
"an oriel window carried on consoles" -carried gives me the impression of movement, would "resting" or some other word fit better here? It might be correct architecturally but it looks odd to me.
Deleted "carried", which I think works.
"an Atlas" -an Atlas what, sculpture?
Amended to say that the carytid and the Atlas are "figures".  Is that adequate?  Or should I say "sculptural figures"?  But that seems unduly complicated.
that's fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
"and a pair of Dancing Girls " -why the italics? If the formal name of a work, please elaborate on what it is.
Dancing Girls is italicised in the source, but on further investigation, Canova created a number of sculptures of dancing girls, so I have removed the italicising.
"In the room is a large fireplace with an overmantel in early Renaissance style" = in the early Renaissance style (definite article). -don't worry I solved this during a copyedit.
"The room contains a large fireplace in early Renaissance style" = the early Renaissance style
Done.
You might state William Gladstone, rather than just Gladstone
Done.
"There are four further ground floor rooms, all by Salvin. The Library has a panelled ceiling with diamond motifs". - I think a paragraph break before this would read better.
Done: but it results in a rather short paragraph.
I gather you're sticking with the capitalisation of the names of rooms but the full "Ground Floor Bedroom" does stand out. It's probably fine but I think you can see what I mean. Probably best to stick with it for consistency.
Agreed.
" The room gets its name from Dorothy Davenport (1562–1639) who spent 26 years in creating the needlework on the Jacobean bed in the room. " -something seems peculiar in terms of timeline here. The way it is worded implies she sat in the room making the bed for 26 years after it was built yet she was Tudor. I gather you mean she created it elsewhere for the room of a previous house on the site? Can you clarify? Is anything else known about her?
I have amended this to what I hope makes sense.  DD was the wife of William Davenport of Bramall, but IMO to say this is not really relevant to the article at GA level.
If he's not notable not really worth it, agreed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
"which contains valuable items of furniture," -such as?
Examples added.  Does this work?
--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Grounds
Fix links to Giotto and Andrew the Apostle (Saint Andrew).

Sorry, don't understand this.  The links go to where I want.  What am I missing?
--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@Peter I. Vardy: When you click both of your current links for these they're redirects, please pipe the links so they link directly, you follow? Don't worry, I've done it for you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Other structurees
Delink ashlar, look out for other possible cases of WP:OVERLINK (didn't you link ogee or pilasters somewhere else?)
been through it. Found some more.  Hope that's all. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Present day
Some very short sentences, you might give this a copyedit and merge a few to improve flow.

Eric seems to have done a good job helping out with this. All good now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@Peter I. Vardy: Found more than I had envisaged, hope this helps. Looks easily passable as a GA, great job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Looks fine for GA, good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Capesthorne Hall. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714134231/http://www.capesthorne.com/gallery/ebwatts to http://www.capesthorne.com/gallery/ebwatts
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140709080916/http://www.capesthorne.com:80/weddings to http://www.capesthorne.com/weddings
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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)