Talk:Brympton d'Evercy

The page failed the above nomination with the following edit summary " 14:00, 8 February 2006 Johnleemk (Talk | contribs) {failedGA; great article, but a third of it has no footnotes and is thus unsourced)" [1] This is not the case as is easily verified the page is fully referenced. Giano | talk 19:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

third of it has no footnotes and is thus unsourced - what a joke! GAs are not meant to be as fully worked up as FAs! Honestly, what is the point? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Voting down Good Articles has the valuable effect of keeping editors busy who might otherwise be crayoning on the walls. --Wetman 00:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• This editor does not crayon on the walls, he climbs up them. Giano | talk 08:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

(I think he may be talking about the person who rejected it, rather than the one who nominated it... -- ALoan (Talk) 10:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC))Reply

Do not insult my English ALoan, my meaning is perfectly clear - why are you writing in those mean letters? Giano | talk 10:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I have removed the info box [2] because I spent a great deal of time trying to make this page look pleasing to the eye, an info box does not help in that respect. All necessary information is in the lead. Info boxes are not policy or required by any wikipedian law. so please do not place them on this page. Thank you Giano 14:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I added the infobox (along with some other info), as it is used on many other historic building page to give a quick summary without having to read through the text - but I don't have any particular feelings either way. I do feeling that "pleasing to the eye" will depend on individual preferences (& browser settings etc). I do feel however that the article includes some "peacock phrases" which might not be considered NPOV.— Rod ^talk 14:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you also removed the referenced statement (to English Nature listing) that it is a grade I listed building - which I feel may be valuable information for readers - was this intentional?— Rod ^talk 14:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I hadn't noticed any - I think all the "beautifulls etc" are referenced, please list or remove any that are not. Giano 14:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've removed a few of these but still feel parts of the article read like an advertisement rather than a factually based encyclopedic article. I've also added the Grade I listed category but feel the statement & ref to support this should be added back in (somewhere).— Rod ^talk 14:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

• "perfect symmetry" is an architectural term, you would be surprised how many very famous symetrical house aren't! Also and it has not suffered the commercial over-exposure that make many of England's historic houses instantly recognisable I think this page is about the only detailed information available anywhere, all the references used are out of print, and the house is kept deliberatly low key - no web site, no guide book, no paying public, it is just hired out for the odd function, and if you google the place it is totally amazing that anyone does ever hire it looking at the limited information they are given Otherwise fine - no problems with your changes. Giano 14:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK I've left the ones you've changed back & added a bit about the origin of the name & Domesday book + mention of listed status if you look at the following refs there are other sections which are listed & the descriptions include useful citations:

• Terrace on south side
• The Alcove, or The Clock Tower
• The Chantry House or The Dower House
• Entrance gateway to Brympton House
• Dovecote
• Pond about 75 metres south

I note the use of "Brympton House" in these official descriptions - should this be mentioned in the article?— Rod ^talk 15:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Brympton House" is incorrect - trust me. Those links only link to a main page how does one log into it Giano 15:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just logged in, most of that information is taken from the references used here. The interior description has not been acurate since circa 1955, some of it 1939. I think they are using out of date sources in some case. It is a private house. so perhaps the English heritage contributors have no better acsess than anyone else. Giano 15:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Brympton House is incorrect - trust me" - do you have some official source to back that up or are you the owner or something?. I've found it is also listed in the Somerset Historic Evironment record (under Brympton House) - don't know if any of these are useful:

• Brympton d'Evercy Park

This one says "Brympton d'Evercy, or Brympton House" Those that have lived there and know it always call it Brympton d'Evercy.

• Brympton House, Brympton

this one says:"Known as Brympton D'Evercy House - Brympton House is now known as Clare School" The first is correct, the second wrong, and the third Clare School was almost 30 years out of date when the site was created. Giano 16:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Deserted medieval village, Brympton

This is talking about the village which is Brympton, the house is always Brympton d'Evercy Giano 16:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

you could also reference the recent planning issues to [3].— Rod ^talk 16:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I cannot discuss that site above, but you can if you want as it is quite imprtant in relationt to the house. Giano 16:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

All of the reference books used for this page, without exception, refer to the mansion as Brympton d'Evercy. Giano 19:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know that this article has been a nominee at WP:GAC in the past and that the primary author did not have a good experience, however I feel that this article meets the GA criteria and Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset is currently doing quite well in getting articles to GA & FA. Would anyone object to a GA nomination?— Rod ^talk 18:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

What do you feel has changed since then? Giano (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know the article in early 2006 when it was turned down, but the comment seems to be about being unreferenced. I can now see only 1 "citation needed" tag & feel that the vast majority of the article has appropriate sources cited. Adding a few more references if required by a reviewer shouldn't be too difficult.— Rod ^talk —Preceding comment was added at 19:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Of course there was no reason for the page to fail when it did. I have just referenced the fact tag but with the greatest possible respect I don't think you realise quite what is demanded now things have moved on. It is not just the books facts came from but also now page numbers are required, plus almost every full stop seems to require a cite these days. I have no time at the moment, so unless you have the reference books to hand the page will fail and not also fail but be covered in unsightly fact tags. It is easier to just remove the facts than dig out books and try and hunt them down. Wikipedia moves on, and I'm not sure in instances like this that I can be bothered to move with it. So it is up to you. My view is it is a nice page will it be any better by being a GA? - why risk spoiling it. Giano (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't have the reference books for this - but have been lead author on 4 GAs & 2 FAs in the last few months so do know the process (and have some contacts who would review it informally if you think that would be useful). But I respect your view & as the primary editor I wouldn't dream of stepping on your toes.— Rod ^talk 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Don't get me wrong I don't mind in the least if you want to do it, it has always been at the back of my mind to bring it up to FA standard some day - it's not far off now. It was written with the intention of being an FA but then became too long and verbose and I did not feel inclined to prune it so I forgot about it. I just don't quite get the point of GA, this my one experience of them and it has rather made me loose faith in them, I just don't feel inclined at present to do a lot of jumping about just for GA. Giano (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I understand how you feel. GA can be a bit of a lottery, but I think it remains a good checkpoint on the way to FA. At least it ought to identify the obvious FA objections, while giving the article at least some credibility. I'm a bit limited for time right now, but after Xmas I'd be happy to offer to be this article's GA reviewer, and I'm sure that if we worked together the process ought not to be too painful. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps not. I'll cast an eye on the article, once the process is well over, to make sure sound information has not been deleted at the demand of some American teen; in the meantime, if this "jury" process is initiated, I'll just be taking this off my Watchlist. --Wetman (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

"credibility" It is already very credible! When I am ready to FA it I will (at the moment it would have to lose information to be an FA) I am not personally interested in being involved in its GA, I have no faith or interest in GA, and have always found FAs I have nominated to acheive that status without this "neither here nor there" process which is GA. Thank you for the offer Malleus Fatuarum, I'm not interested. Giano (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Should something be included about the gardens and parklands - there is quite a bit of info from Parks and Gardens UK Brympton d'Evercy but I'm nervous about any editing I might do to this article.— Rod ^talk 13:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh do relax Rod, in this case probably not because while the article does in fact have Knyff's view (the one the link refers too) it was in all probability never executed - the house most likely never had a garden of any real meaning until the mid 19th century, which is mentioned in the page as it stands. Giano (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The text was riddled with typos and other nonsenses and hopelessly, almost laughably overlinked. The punctuation and formatting were an inconsistent mess as well. I hope one or two other people will give it a full read as well, and try to put it into shape. I agree that something is needed about the grounds but I would say the whole page is too long in relation to the importance of its subject. It needs quite a lot of cutting, in my view.Bmcln1 (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am sure we are all most grateful for your kind interest in this page and your superior editing skills. What a good think though that "your view" is not taken across the project - there is no need for the length of a Wikipedia article to reflect the importance of the subject; the aim is to provide as much information as possible. Some of your changes are erroneous, replacing "fenestration" with "windows", for example, in this instance, is not the same thing at all. I suggest you brush up on your architectural terms and then return and fix up the errors you have now created. Giano (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad you too are taking an interest again and look forward to seeing your corrections. With your comment on "fenestration" I expect you mean that it includes doors and other apertures as well as windows. Do please restore the word, I was going to say with a Wikilink for other ignoramuses like me, but unfortunately the Wikipedia page on fenestration (architecture) takes you straight to the page window. Perhaps you could explain a bit in a footnote. Bmcln1 (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Still the Glossops?

I mentioned this to a chap down at the Drones Club, and he said “What ho! Not the bally loony doctor, is it?” 2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:BC69:4AE4:F44A:F502 (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply