Wikipedia:Peer review/Bruce Castle/archive1

Bruce Castle

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after sitting half finished for some time, it's finally been expanded, recently passed a very thorough GA review, and now I'm wondering whether it can get over the next hurdle. I has some gaps in the architectural history, but these are gaps where the sources don't exist – archaeologists are still unable to decide on the origins of the building, and even the usually-authoritative Pevsner is unable to specify a century of construction, let alone a date. I'm aware that, because information on the history of the structure is so scant, the history of the inhabitants seems unduly large, but I can't see an obvious way round that. Because of the gaps, this will be an unusual FAC, and ideally I'd like as many eyes as possible to take a look to try to weed out any issues missed in the GA review before it goes that far. – iridescent 17:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look & would have expected to see Bruce Castle at Images of England mentioned - at least to reference the fact that it is a Grade I listed building which is currently uncited - NB gives construction date of c1600. The other relevant sources from IoE are: Western boundary wall, South boundary wall & Tower. Based on those a little more description of the architecture would be possible. Hope these are helpful.— Rod ^talk 18:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

For what architectural history there is, I think it's better to go by Pevsner – who says much the same, but in far more detail. I agree that the listing needs to be cited, and have included cites to IofE for the building and its tower, which is listed separately. (The boundary walls to the park are also listed separately, but I think mentioning them would be going into excessive detail.) – iridescent 18:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[conflict]The basic structure is said to be of the era of the Comptons (BritHistory online); but extensively modified for Rowland Hill.

You may want to look at Bruce Castle Park community excavation 2006 ; very kindly he marks the stream 'creative commons, with attribution'. There may be something usable from the finds' tray. There's an image here, showing the tower incorporated into the structure - but looking at the modern structure, I suspect it's been conflated from individual sketches. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Flickr stream is marked non-commercial use, which is incompatiable with GFDL. (I think it would be nice to have them – the current set of photos are rather sterile – but there's nothing with enough of a "wow!" factor to warrant the effort of chasing the photographer and pestering them into releasing rights.) Regarding the oldlondonmaps.com image, I think that image is either a conflation, or a trick of perspective – I don't believe there's ever been any suggestion that the tower once formed part of the house, and the 17th century image, which predates this picture (as it still shows the gables removed by James Townsend in the 18th century) shows that the two were clearly unattached at this point. – iridescent 18:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the BritHistory Online claim about the history; Pevsner, who's generally totally trustworthy, makes a convincing case for most of the house being 17th and 18th century remodelling, based on a shell by Compton, itself possibly part of a larger courtyard house which has since been demolished. Hill moved some internal walls, but AFAIK the only change to the external appearance of the house made under him was the building of the school extension at the back. – iridescent 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note re the automated peer review – I think "The Hill School" is correct in this context as "the" was part of the proper name. I'm aware the lead is short, but it covers all that needs to be said, and expanding it would just be padding for expansion's sake. – iridescent 13:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
  • What makes http://www.search.revolutionaryplayers.org.uk/engine/resource/exhibition/standard/default.asp?resource=4276 a reliable source?

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Revolutionary players :- The project was initiated by The Libraries Partnership - West Midlands, which becomes part of Museums, Libraries and Archives - West Midlands in April 2003. Kbthompson (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
      • (ec) Although I agree the design makes it look like a fansite, it's actually a collaboration between a number of respectable academic institutions which deal with the history of the West Midlands and Mercia (Bewdley Museum, Birmingham Central Library, Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, Derby Museum and Art Gallery, Erasmus Darwin House, The National Gallery, Wolverhampton Art Gallery etc) to unify their online biographical archives. – iridescent 14:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)