Talk:Kingston Lacy

• I found this article^[1] on Jstor which might be useful for this article (I don't want to start playing with the article while its going for "Good Article" and mess it up!)
• Also, there appears to be a bibliography missing.

@Staceydolxx: Thanks Stacey, I have incorporated it. Tell me about the missing bibliography? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are very welcome, well done on such a good expansion! Sources 3 & 4 are pointing to books but there is no bibliography section. ツStacey (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good point. With a bit of detective work I managed to sort it out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 20:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Will review tomorrow morning Cwmhiraeth, ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Lede

• I don't think you need "substantial".
• "It was the family seat of the Bankes family, who had previously resided nearby at Corfe Castle until its destruction in the English Civil War after its incumbent owners, Sir John Bankes and Dame Mary, remained loyal to Charles I." -a bit of a mouthful, the "after" part doesn't flow well, perhaps split/copyedit a bit.
• "The gardens and parkland were laid down at the same time" -by Pratt too?

I don't know. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Background

• "By the 16th century the house was in ruins. In 1603 King James I gave the lands to Sir Charles Blount, whose son in 1636 sold the estate to Sir John Bankes, who had been appointed attorney general to King Charles I in 1634." -"whose" and "who" makes it jar a little. I'd split it a bit/copyedit
• "Although deprived of their castle, the Bankes family still owned some 8,000 acres (3,200 ha) of the surrounding Dorset countryside and coastline,[1] and the local villagers used the handy supply of stone to rebuild their own residences.[4]" -the latter part of the sentence is unrelated so should probably be split.
• I would reorganize the sections, Make background history, merge in History further down and then change "The House" to "Architecture"

The house

• "Like that house, the hall is two storeys high, but in this case, the great stair has been moved out of the main hall and is no longer at the centre of the house." -need sa copyedit, try something like " Like that house, the hall is two storeys high, though its great stair as been removed from the main hall in the centre of the house"
• "Pratt's original plans have been lost, but he did leave extensive notes on his thinking, and his design is clear." -rep of "he and "his" -
• What is a "pergolo"?

I don't know. Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

• "whist"?
• "Sited centrally within the 164 hectares (410 acres) grounds, externally the new house was provided with 5 hectares (12 acres) of formal gardens and pleasure grounds, some of which were enclosed by walls, while a series of formal avenues radiated throughout the surrounding 159 hectares (390 acres) of park lands." - a bit of a mouthful, can you rephrase?

History

• "Bankes often entertained his friends William Pitt the Younger and the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington at the house.[1]

His son, "

• Change His to Bankes's as he wasn't the last person mentioned above it
• "which was now to be formally known" -awkward tense

Gardens

• "The formal gardens and pleasure grounds are situated close to the house, with an area of informal pleasure grounds" -rep of "pleasure grounds"

Fill out ref 12.

@Cwmhiraeth: Review done, await your response, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have made the changes you suggest above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:  

   B. MoS compliance:  

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:  

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  

   C. No original research:  

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:  

   B. Focused:  

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:  

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:  

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:  ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Could/should the two red character date stamps, on two of the images in the gallery, be removed somehow? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree they are a bit unsightly but am unsure how to go about removing them. There may be other images we could substitute for them. Feel free to do what you like. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

As images go, I think they're pretty good. I'm sure a few minutes with PaintShop Pro would render something more acceptable. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

You could try making a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop.--Ykraps (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I found there is a backlog at the Photography Workshop and plenty of alternative images at Commons so I have substituted two images in the gallery. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's probably for the best then. I only mentioned it because I requested a date stamp removed from one of my images and found it to be most satisfactory.--Ykraps (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Lol. I won't bother doing a quick and dirty clean up with Paint then! But those images are probably better. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think this is the one - not a Canon.

it's not showing the newly added picture in full presentation mode Wentwort12 (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello! As part of this National Trust pilot project, a small number of images have been released to Commons, including relevant to Kingston Lacy. If you have comments on this please add them to the project talk page. Thank you! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

When this article was promoted to GA, the Gallery had four images, [1]. That number has now tripled, with the addition of eight extra, large, images. I understand the tendency of some editors to continually add images, but Wikipedia isn't Instagram. Images which illustrate points in the text are great, but indiscriminate groups of images don't improve articles. I'm proposing to trim shortly. Very happy to discuss, of course. KJP1 (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I think the images are all wonderful and really make the article sparkle. They really are high quality. As they are placed low in the article body, no reader who is interested only in the history/ architecture is obliged to see them. If there are images of features not described in the text, I'd be tempted to add text, instead of removing the images. Let's see what other editors have to say. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply