# Talk:Linwood House

Unfortunately, when a building listed by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) gets removed from the register (because it was demolished, say), the Trust removes the building's web listing. Many historic web pages are accessible through Wayback Machine, but this particular page was never archived: http://www.historic.org.nz/TheRegister/RegisterSearch/RegisterResults.aspx?RID=3119
I have obtained the NZHPT's original registration report, which the before-mentioned website was derived from. Schwede66 05:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't quite make sense of the NZHPT registration date and wrote to them for clarification. Here's what they had to say:
"Yes you are quite right that A and B classifications became Cat I and C and D classifications became Cat II historic places.  But following an audit of the Register in 2003, there were some ‘deficient registrations’ identified that had to go through the registration process again – mostly in cases where a valid Board Minute could not be found upon audit.  This was indeed the case for Linwood House – the previous date of registration was 17 August 1982 but confirmation of registration was not found at the claimed date of registration.  Accordingly, a new registration proposal was prepared in 2005 (this is the date you will see on the report that I sent through to you).  The Board confirmed the registration on 24 June 2005."
No wonder I got confused. Thanks for the clarification. Schwede66 21:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Linwood House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 09:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

These are my comments:

"Architecturally, it was a rare example of a late" - I would change the underlined to "Linwood House"  Fixed
"which gave it historical importance." - the city gave it historical importance? If yes, then I don't understand it.  Fixed
"Its association with Joseph Brittan" - I would replace the underlined with eg "The building's" for clarity.  Fixed
"having caused such a scandal was responded to by emigrating, which the newly-weds did a month after the ceremony.[6]" - can you reword this as confusing?  Fixed
"mid 1852" - add hyphen.  Fixed
"rural land some 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) east of Cathedral Square.[9]" - perhaps a rural land? And "some" sounds too colloquial, how about "about"?  Fixed
"and it is believed that he also designed Englefield Lodge.[10]" - too weasily, how about: he may have also designed...  Fixed
The section "History and ownership" contains much information unrelated to the actual building. C I'll get onto that. Y See discussion below.
"their then two children remained in Wellington." - I think this word is redundant.  Fixed
" (the former dwelling of John Anderson to Linwood House.[45]" - there is no closing bracket  Fixed
"(later known as Knox Church.[48]" - ditto  Fixed
"In ca 1995," - avoid abbreviations; write for example "about"  Fixed
As I said, the article is not focused and has a lot of biographical content unrelated to the building. The most problematic section is "Joseph Brittan (1857–1867)". C Y See discussion below.
Link Anglican Church in the last section  Fixed
Are restorations considered?  Not sure The house has been demolished in its entirety (check the photo). There's nothing to restore.
In ref 61, what does the "B"s in "B8-B9" mean? Nutshell I'll explain that reference on the article's talk page.
--Kürbis (✔) 17:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review so far. That's greatly appreciated. I'll work through the remaining issue (focus). Schwede66 20:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I have trimmed the section on Joseph Brittan and I agree that this was too broad / unfocussed. I haven't trimmed any of the other sections. Yes, there is biographical information contained in the History and ownership section, but in my opinion, this is relevant to the social history of the house. I have drafted the article so that the reader gets an impression of how the status of the house changed over time, from the 'movers and shakers' living there, followed by middle-class occupants and use as a school, to the conversion to flats. In my opinion, the social history of a building can be as important as its architectural history. Or in other words, there is much more to a building than just bricks and mortar. It also matters who lives there, and how that fits into society. If in your opinion, the article isn't focussed enough, can you please point to specific examples, so that I can see where you are coming from? Schwede66 19:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a hardcopy of an article that was published in The Press on 5 March 2011. The article was spread over two pages (B8 and B9), but I have page B9 only. Hence, half the title is missing from the reference.  As The Press is divided into sections and each section starts with page 1, the section letter is part of the page numbering (i.e. in this case, the article appeared in section B). Schwede66 20:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this not a very odd description for a house built in 1857? Eddaido (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know; this is very much not my area of expertise. I very much expect that the description comes from the heritage registration report, which is no longer online, but I do have a hard copy somewhere. Shall I dig this out to confirm? If so, would you be happy to have a discussion with the NZHPT people (I can give you an email address)? Schwede66 18:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The registration report is online again. It is indeed the source for the "odd description", as you call it. Schwede66 19:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've spoken to the Christchurch office and expect to hear more tomorrow. Eddaido (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
We talked at some length and at cross-purposes (to make it clear I am questioning the assessment of the architect who did it) and the next day I received an email which repeated the phrase as evidence of something. I expect the building was all well-photographed and anyone who is interested enough can form their own opinions from those pictures. I will drop the matter because if I'm correct and if my persistence got it changed I do acknowledge the correction wouldn't much reduce our load of the world's multifarious injustices! Eddaido (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Linwood 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208184141/http://canterburyearthquake.org.nz/category/buildings/demolition/page/3/ to http://canterburyearthquake.org.nz/category/buildings/demolition/page/3/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330231608/http://linwoodhouse.co.nz/ to http://linwoodhouse.co.nz/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330231608/http://linwoodhouse.co.nz/ to http://linwoodhouse.co.nz/
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: 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) 23:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)