Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pitfour estate/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2015 [1].

Pitfour estate edit

Nominator(s): Eric Corbett, SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In its hey-day, the Pitfour estate stretched across 50 square miles of northeast Aberdeenshire and was described by the architectural historian Charles McKean as “The Blenheim of the North”. Features included a racecourse, an observatory, a replica Theseus temple and much more. At one time said to be valued at £30 million, what remains of it today? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from edwininlondon edit

Happy with revisions. Thank you. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Interesting article. Generally good prose and good illustrations. A few comments:[reply]

  • With the estate section coming after the lairds section, there is a case of jumbled up chronology. When I first read it I had questions about the estate that I didn't know were going to be answered later. In these articles the reader expects to start with the early history. I appreciate the desire to separate the estate and lairds information, but if so, I think the estate comes first, and a section about its owners could follow.
    This suggestion hasn't been raised previously despite being reviewed as a GA and shortly after being subjected to a GA check; I have given it some thought but I disagree as I feel the Lairds section gives the reader a brief explanatory overview of the family. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there were two parallel chronologies, one for the lairds and one for the estate, which we've now attempted to merge. See what you think now. Eric Corbett 17:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lairds section reads better if each laird gets its own paragraph.
    I think this would make the paragraphs too short and choppy. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We've done some reorganisation, which I think addresses this issue. Eric Corbett 17:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, better. I would move the death year of the Admiral to his own section though.Edwininlondon (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In normal circumstances his brother Patrick would have been his heir, but he died in battle in October 1780." Not keen on this sentence, as the circumstances sets up something special, whereas the brother had simply died years earlier.
    I'm afraid I don't quite follow your point here? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The estate was then inherited by George Fergusson": relationship? how did he end up being the one inheriting the estate?
    Clarified. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To cover his substantial gambling debts, he began to sell parcels of land, and upon inheriting the estate he began selling furniture, .." confusing what the land refers to, land of the estate or not?
    Tweaked a little bit. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "George Arthur, the sixth laird was posted to Canada" Already mentioned he is the 6th and actually when posted he wasn't quite yet, according to the following text. Better would be something along the lines of "In 186x he was posted to Canada,"
    Tweaked a bit and changed to refer to him as Captain Ferguson. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sixth laird: Anything known about buyers of the estate?
    I've added a little bit to it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mansion house section: "When the fourth laird, George (the Governor), died.." this bit is confusing as it goes back to 4th after the 6th, and then next paragraph starts with the fifth again. Maybe better to do it chronologically.
    Shuffled it around a bit. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Theseus temple: the image that goes with it is the observatory according to the caption. I guess the image should move to the Observatory section. An image of the temple would be good.
    I moved the image of the Observatory. Regarding an image for the temple: it would be nice but recent images are all shrouded in scaffolding as the structure has been unsafe for years; any old images seem to be held in private collections and I believe are copyrighted. Hopefully once restoration work is eventually undertaken an image can be added - I think we're looking at years rather than months though. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to Historic Scotland, it was built "probably circa 1835"." this bit is better off at the beginning of the paragraph, right after "Local historian Alex Buchan attributes it to James, the third laird"
    Tweaked and shuffled. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observatory and racecourse section should start with the Observatory in line with sub-header
    The racecourse was established before the observatory was built so I've swapped the header. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is nothing known about usage of the racecourse?
    Not that I can find and Buchan doesn't give much detail about it either. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rest of the estate is seldom used or even known about by local residents however." may I suggest a rewrite to "However, the rest of the estate is seldom used by local residents, many of whom do not even know about it." Edwininlondon (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've altered that but completely dropped the "However". SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld edit

Support An excellent article which meets FA criteria. Just some minor points:

  • "The racecourse is now forested" -perhaps mention the year it became forested in the lede if you can?
    I will double check to see if I can find a date for it; I believe some of the forestry is dated to the late 1920s. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a brief note with the only information I've been able to find. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Added year of forestation to the lead as I've now been able to confirm it was 1926. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "James Ferguson—known as the Sheriff, which reflects the post he held," meh, why not just saying "In 1700, the local sheriff James Ferguson bought the estate after selling the lands of Badifurrow."?
    It seemed the easiest way to introduce them being referred to by their professions, the Sheriff, the Member, the Governor, etc. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He too continued to expand and improve the estate; he constructed a lake and a canal, and built the new mansion." -date?
    As there is such a variety of dates, and it couldn't even be done by at the turn of the century or some such, I left the fuller explanation under the relevant sections. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The estate was then inherited" -best to avoid "then" to start a paragraph I think. If you have a date say In xxx it was inherited.
    Tweaked. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link St Fergus to New Pitsligo in estate.
    Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by architectural historian "-British English, the architectural historian?
    Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • natural son of -the natural son of?
    Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with "Local historian Alex Buchan" -I know Cassianto and Tim riley would agree with me on using the definite article.
  • hipped roof -link?
    Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • finial and domed -links?
    Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmm, Twentieth-century section. I'd be tempted to merge Lairds, Estate and that and recent times into a History section, but you and Eric might disagree.

♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for looking at this, Dr. Blofeld, it's much appreciated. I've done some of the very quick fixes and will look at the others tomorrow. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Pitfour_House,_side_view.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Given the date of the photo it is quite possible they did not. Same with File:Pitfour_House,_Aberdeenshire,_side_view_-_the_'Blenheim_of_the_North'.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking these, Nikkimaria, I've had a go at tweaking them. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley edit

This is a most pleasing piece, and it seems to me to have the makings of a Featured Article. A few comments before I sign on the dotted line:

  • Lead
    • "The first three lairds were solicitors who transformed the estate" – two points here: first if "solicitors" means what it means in England there should be a link; secondly it isn't clear what the relevance is of the lairds' day jobs to their transformation of the estate.
      They were all advocates; I have removed it because, as you rightly highlight, it isn't especially pertinent to the transformation of the estate. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the sequestration of the estate" – link needed for this technical term
      Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "have been classified as at high risk by Historic Scotland because their condition had become poor." – troubles with tenses here: "have" becomes "had" in the same sentence.
      Fixed. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early history
    • "given by Ferguson as "cold croft"" – which Ferguson?
      Clarified. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but Milne breaks" – and who is Milne?
      added "historian" with supporting ref. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lairds and subsequent development
    • "Like his forebears, he was an advocate" – but earlier we are told that they were members of the junior branch of the legal profession.
      All three were advocates. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Fine. I think I may have misunderstood the precise meaning of the term. Tim riley talk 14:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mansion house
    • "employed architect John Smith" – regrettable false title here. The addition of a definite article would remedy the tabloidese construction.
      Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • " the mansion's verandah" – the OED admits the variant "verandah", but "veranda" is surely more usual?
      Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chapels
    • "had an argument with Reverend Arthur Ranken" – unless (which may be the case, I suppose) Scottish usage differs from standard English practice, the Rev gentleman is entitled to the definite article before his "Rev".
      Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "re–cast" – the OED does not hyphenate the word.
      Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canal and lake
    • "Not sure why we have the usual Windsor Great Park piped to make it into the unfamiliar "Windsor Park". (Cards on the table: I am the retired librarian of the Crown Estate, which owns the park, and so I Have Views.)
      Done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent times
    • "gave the go ahead – the OED hyphenates the term.
      Hyphen added. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing earth-shattering there. I'll look in again in a few days to see how matters progress. Tim riley talk 21:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for going through this, Tim, it's very much appreciated. I think I've addressed all the points you raised? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • All fine as far as I'm concerned. Now happy to add my support. I enjoyed this article, and it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 14:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Footnote 44 says "Buchan (2008), p. 5s3". I'm not sure what the "s" means.
  • Everything else looks good. Everything is sourced, sources appear reliable. Nice work. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! It was a fat finger typo that I've now fixed - it becomes ref # 36 now. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pitfour_estate/archive1&oldid=1138469091"