# Talk:Powis Castle

This review is transcluded from Talk:Powis Castle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

 


### Initial comments
This is clearly of GA standard, and is, I trust, on its way to FAC. Meanwhile, I offer a few minor comments that you may like to consider.

Lead
"Powis Castle ... is a British medieval castle, fortress and grand country house" – this strikes me as a strange word order. See this: I'd expect "British" to come after "medieval". On rereading I think I see why you've worded it thus. Perhaps omit "British", though? Just a thought.
"the architect George Bodley. His wife, Violet" – Lady Powis, I assume, rather than Mrs Bodley, but it is ambiguous.
Early history: 1286–1644
"each daughter and their respective husbands living in a portion of the castle – the tenses have got a bit muddled here. I think you want either "both daughters and their respective husbands" or "each daughter and her husband"
"Sir Edward's wife was a Roman Catholic" – but they were plain Catholics earlier in the text. I prefer "Roman Catholic" as there are other types of Catholic (Anglo, for instance), but either way it would be as well to be consistent.
The Herberts: 1660–1800
"while the castle and estates passed to a relative Henry Herbert" – comma needed after "relative".
The Clives and Herberts: 1801–1952
"He died in 1848, following a hunting accident at Powis in which he was shot by his second son" – in England (and I assume Wales) the distinction between huntin', shootin' and fishin' is clear: guns are used in shooting but not in hunting. I see from The Times that the earl and his son were shooting pheasants.
"the long reign of his eldest son Edward" – reign seems a slightly grand term for a mere earl.
"Viceroyalty of India" – should the V be a capital?
"The rooms designed by Bodley remain his only extant decorative scheme, due to the longevity of the 4th Earl, the deaths of his heirs, and his bequest of the castle to the National Trust" – I don't follow this. Overlooking the fact that "due to" when forced to serve as a compound preposition is tabloidese, I can't understand why the longevity of the earl, deaths of his heirs and bequest to the NT mean that these rooms are Bodley's only extant decorative scheme. There seems no correlation.
"the potential to be "the most beautiful in England and Wales" – attribution for the quote, please.
The National Trust: 1952–present
"under arrangement with the National Trust" – missing a "an"?
Exterior
"the workshop of Dutchman John van Nost" – clunky false title, and in any case do we need to know that he was Dutch?
"an impressive sequence of iron gates – the adjective could do with a citation.
"Their date of construction is uncertain, they may be from the time of the first Marquess" – comma splice.
Interiors
"redevelopment and redecoration undertaken by George Bodley is unusually sensitive" – unusually sensitive for Bodley or unusually sensitive in general? Who says so?
Pending - need to find the quote.KJP1 (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Afterthought: Bodley is sometimes George and sometimes G. F. in the text. Probably better to standardise on one or the other.
Great Staircase
"Catherine of Braganza, wife of Charles II, who restored William Herbert to his Welsh estates and made him 1st Earl of Powis" – this is grammatically unexceptionable but you must admit it is ambiguous. Did Catherine or Charles restore Mr W. H. to his Welsh estates etc?
"The painting's inspiration is likely the Apotheosis of Venice" – "likely" on its own like this is an Americanism we could do without. Thus spake the excellent Guardian style guide:
In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as "they will likely win the game" sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well.
There's another unadorned "likely" in the Garden section later in the text.
"due to structural instability" – another "due to" where "because of" would be more elegant. There are four more later in the text, too.
"In 2017 the Trust began fundraising efforts to fund" – excess funds
The Water Garden
"responsible for the original water gardens which were laid out in a Dutch style" – you want a comma before "which", to turn a restrictive relative clause into a non-restrictive one.
Later work
"William Emes, aside from the destruction of the water garden" – unexpected Americanism. In BrE one would expect "apart from".
"a new position behind the Wilderness ridge and the laying out of the Formal Garden at the base of the terraces, and a Fountain Garden and the Croquet Lawn in the far south-eastern corner – I avoid discussing capitalisation wherever I can (something of a minefield) but I really do wonder if Croquet Lawn can reasonably be viewed as a title rather than a mere label. The same goes for Formal Garden, I'd say, but I do not press the point.
Notes
"The historian David Stephenson has suggested that the castle could have been started in the period 1241–57" – the MoS wants date ranges of more than a year to be given in full: 1241–1257".
"the current Prince of Wales was a frequent visitor to the castle during the time of the sixth earl" – I think if you look into the matter you will find that the chap you are referring to is now King.
That's all from me. Over to you and then we can wrap this review up without further ado. I shan't bother putting it formally on hold, unless you wish it. – Tim riley talk 12:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Tim riley - Thanks very much for picking this up, and for the very helpful review. Shall address the comments tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Tim riley - Think these are now all attended to, with the exception of the "sensitivity" of Bodley's designs. I just need to find the source for this, which I certainly have. Will ping when it's found, it'll be today. KJP1 (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Tim riley - Have now tweaked the Bodley comment and added a Pevsner cite. Hope it fits the bill. And that I've covered everything. Thanks again for picking this one up - greatly appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Well referenced.
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: 
Well illustrated.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

First class article, as expected from this source. On to FAC, and please ping me when you get there! Tim riley talk 10:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)