Talk:Illieston House

This review is transcluded from Talk:Illieston House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Richard Nevell (talk · contribs) 22:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  

   The article is well written, with a couple of places where the prose could be clarified, but those are minor. The lead is short, and could be expanded to better summarise the topic.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section):   b (inline citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  

   Reliable sources are used, especially Canmore and Coventry. I'm happy with the use of Stravaiging Around Scotland as I've used the site before and found that it is reliable, but it would come under more scrutiny at FAC.

   I would be cautious about the use of Scottish Field for the name Halistonium. The point of the article in Scottish Field seems to be to discuss the tower as a living space as it had come onto the market, and the name is a throwaway point. I looked in Google Books and Google Scholar but couldn't find the name there.

   "The castle was built on the slopes of the River Almond some time around 1600 for a branch of the Hamilton family." The Canmore reference used here supports the c.1600 date, but doesn't mention that the Hamilton family or relatives were involved at this stage.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):   b (focused):  

   The coverage is good, though the changing ownership over time happens in fits and starts. I appreciate that is a by-product of the available sources. The level of detail is appropriate for a Good Article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:  

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:  

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:  

   The article is in good shape overall, and close to passing. Once the points above about the lead, Scottish Field, Halistonium, and the Hamiltons are addressed I'll be happy to pass the article. I have provided a list of more detailed comments below which I hope are helpful.

I've been reading through the article this evening, and will write the review here. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this. I'm not going to get chance to look over it properly today, but in the meantime regarding Halistonium, I'd seen it in a few other similar articles regarding selling the property (likely copying each other!), but also can't find it in a scholary article. The most authoritative source I can find for it is https://www.westlothian.gov.uk/media/53907/Country-Houses-Booklet-Summer-2022/pdf/Country_Houses.pdf page 38. That's dated "summer 2022" and I created the Wikipedia article September 2022 so I'm assuming they didn't get it from here at least! -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd been wondering about the West Lothian document. The earliest reference I can find through Google is news coverage from November 2017, when Halistonium is mentioned by a spokesperson from Savills. The local government document references Daily Mail coverage which uses the same Savills quote, so that's their source. Is Savills robust enough for the claim? I'm not sure, I'll ruminate a bit! Richard Nevell (talk) 14:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Did you get chance to think about this? My thinking was primarily just that the local government source hopefully did some due diligence of their own. However I'm happy to just remove that sentance if you think that's best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It falls into the area of editorial discretion, but I am leaning towards taking it out. I would hope that the council would check, but I think if they had the original source would be included rather than the Daily Mail. This is slightly second guessing what in most circumstances would be a reliable source. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've removed it, though kept the source to reinforce another claim in the article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't find evidence the Hamilitons had it originally, only they had it before John Ellis did, so I've amended that text. Though https://www.scottish-places.info/features/featurefirst20544.html does say the lands were given to the Hamilton family in 1455. The Savills source said The Hamilton name has long been associated with Illieston, after Lord Hamilton was given the lands and house as reward for releasing the Earl of Monteath from capture at Pontyfract Castle but I don't know when that was and I'd have liked a more authoritive source to put that in the article ideally...

I've also now expanded the lede. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I like the new approach to mentioning the Hamiltons, I think it's clearer and the explanation of non-entry helps as well. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Does the kitchen wing form the stem of the T? If so, stating that may help the reader visualise the arrangement in the absence of a plan under an open licence.
  • The original kitchen wing did I believe, but the new kitchen wing doesn't look like a T anymore based on page 6 of https://assets.savills.com/properties/GBEDRSEDS110174/EDS110174_EDS17002889.PDF - I've reworded it a bit.
  • Actually, the "stem" might be the stair tower, but I've not seen that confirmed in a source for this particular building.
• When introducing the stair tower in the 'Description' section, perhaps state that it runs the height of tower, as this builds contrast with the second stair (otherwise it seems odd to mention them in separate sentences).
  • Done.
• "There is an additional 2nd stair-turret" Either 'additional' or '2nd would be enough, but both is redundant.
  • Done.
• "The modern interior includes four bedrooms and three reception rooms" The present layout is enough detail for a Good Article, but information about how the layout has changed would be useful.
  • I think the new kitchen wing might be the main layout change.
• I'm not sure readers will know what a turret room is - I'm certainly having to use context clues to conclude it's a room in the turret, but the name invites the question.
  • Reworded.
• Linking to the Hamilton family in the opening paragraph of the 'History' section is confusing as the linked article is about the American family, rather than the Scottish family the American branch originated from.
  • Fixed.
• "John Ellis owned a portrait of his kinsman John Scot, Lord Scotstarvit." Relating to criterion 3b, I'm not sure how significant this point is in relation to the house.
  • Removed.
• It would be helpful to have a brief note what the law of "non-entry" is.
  • Note to myself to look at entry 4 of https://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/entry -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Extra text now added. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
• It would also be worth stating that from James Hope-Johnstone the castle descended with the Earls of Hopetoun as noted in scottish-places.info, though at what point it passed out of the family is unclear.
  • I'm a bit hesitant about this, because it's confirmed it went to the 3rd Earl in 1765, but less clear if it even passed to the 4th Earl.
    • In that case, it's reasonable to leave it as it is. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
• The house's listed building status is noted in the infobox, but not in the body of the article where the significance of the Category B listing could be briefly explained.
  • Added a sentance in the "19th to 21st century" section.
• Is there anything more to say about the garden? I'm thinking as the house of an earl there may be someone of note about the gardens.
  • I've seen minimal beyond a few lines in the Savills source.
    • Fair enough. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Though it is not part of the GA criteria, the two images don't have alt text. This is partly a reminder to myself, as I am working on a draft article and I know I haven't addressed the alt text yet.
  • Added. Something I admit I rarely do!

I just spotted that the review for Muckrach Castle came through at almost the same time. If you want to focus on that first, I'm in no particular rush. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've made a start, but I'll ping you once I've addressed everything. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Richard Nevell Apologies for my slowness with this! But I think I've now addressed all your points above, so over to you. Thank you again for this. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article looks in good shape, I'm happy to pass it. Well done on the work! Richard Nevell (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply