Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Registered historic parks and gardens in Monmouthshire/archive1

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Registered historic parks and gardens in Monmouthshire[edit]

Registered historic parks and gardens in Monmouthshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from Grade I/Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire, and with historic parks and gardens getting the same statutory status as buildings in Wales in 2022, I wanted to try and get a list of Monmouthshire gardens up to the same standard. I owe a huge debt to User:EdwardUK who did all of the work on the formatting, making this really a joint nomination. I've tried to get a corresponding article, an image and notes for every entry. Where a full article's not been appropriate/possible, due to the paucity of sources, I've created a section in a linked article. I've gone back through the FL criteria, and it seems to meet these, but I've been very close to the list, so it would greatly benefit from some independent scrutiny. Any and all comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • Will do a full review later but just noting that some of the notes don't need full stops. "The rare remnants of a Tudor garden." for example is not a complete sentence so doesn't need one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chris - appreciated. Will sort those. KJP1 (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

  • You spell mediaeval like that in the lead but without the first a later on
Done, I hope.
Apologies - I missed one use of "medieval" in the first paragraph of the lead. So you need to change the spelling there and also move the wikilink to that usage rather than the one in the third paragraph -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary! Both done. KJP1 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with possible attributions to Samuel Lapidge, a pupil of Capability Brown, and John Claudius Loudon." - this could technically refer to two or three people. Any way to reword?
Done - by tweaking the wording to try to make clear there were only two.
  • "The gardens, including a lakeside Japanese garden are mostly lost," => "The gardens, including a lakeside Japanese garden, are mostly lost,"
Done.
  • "but traces of the 18th century park, and the earlier deer park, remain" => "but traces of the 18th century park and the earlier deer park remain"
Done.
  • "recorded in his 1807 history; Descriptive Account of the Kymin Pavilion and Beaulieu Grove with their various views; also a description of the Naval Temple that ten counties could be seen from its upper storey; (Gloucestershire, Monmouthshire, Glamorganshire, Breconshire, Montgomeryshire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Radnorshire, Shropshire and Somerset)" => "recorded in his 1807 history, Descriptive Account of the Kymin Pavilion and Beaulieu Grove with their various views; also a description of the Naval Temple, that ten counties could be seen from its upper storey (Gloucestershire, Monmouthshire, Glamorganshire, Breconshire, Montgomeryshire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Radnorshire, Shropshire and Somerset)"
Done - but I've kept the italics for the book title.
Chris - many thanks indeed for taking a look. I hope I've addressed all of these, and the issue of full stops where it's not actually a full sentence. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Since the tables used templates instead of wikitables, I updated the templates to have better accessibility; this included:
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. The header template now allows for this; visual captions can be added by putting |caption=caption_text as a parameter; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. The template now makes the "name" cell of each row the row header, no additional work needed.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 23:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A caption has been added. Thanks for improving the templates and the related listed building templates they were based on. EdwardUK (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Bagging a place. Back shortly. Tim riley talk 15:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How wise of me to hang back till Dudley has done all the heavy lifting. Not much from me. A few quibbles about points of prose, but as a whole the article seems to me of FL quality.
  • "the historic county, known between 1974 and 1996 as Gwent" – I'm open to correction, but I don't see the short-lived Gwent as a "historic county"
Done.
  • "The house was almost completely destroyed in a fire in 1905 but was restored in the early 21st century" – can you restore something that has been almost completely destroyed? Rebuilt seems more the word.
Done.
  • "Clytha Park is "the finest early nineteenth century Greek Revival house in the county" – I always think quotes like this should be attributed inline: "according to So-and So ..."
Done - by attribution.
  • "park and garden which was designed..." – two nouns but a singular verb. I'd dodge the issue by just writing "park and garden designed..."
Done.
  • "landscaping which may have been undertaken by Samuel Lapidge, who studied under Capability Brown, and subsequently John Claudius Loudon – ambiguous. It is that Lapidge studied under Brown and then Loudon or that Loudon succeeded Lapidge as designer?
Done, I hope. I've got into rather a tangle with this, Chris didn't like my earlier version! I hope it's now clear that earlier work is attributed to Lapidge, who studied under Brown, and that later work is attributed to Loudon.
  • "American redwoods and a Monkey Puzzle" – not sure why monkey puzzle needs capital letters (unless in honour of the beloved Araucaria).
Done.
  • "Monmouthshire's best example of an 18th century Picturesque landscape" – says who?
Done - by a tweak that allows attribution. Whittle did also say it, but I can't immediately lay my hands on the text.
  • "dated quite precisely to between 1840 and 1872" – not sure a third of a century is all that precise a period.
All inconsequential stuff. The actual content of the page seems to my layman's eyes to be excellent. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 14:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim - greatly appreciated, and most helpful. I hope the issues are resolved to your satisfaction, but let me know if any concerns remain. KJP1 (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I had to refresh my memory about the FL criteria, as I don't review many FL candidates, and this one seems to me to meet all the criteria. Tim riley talk 17:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

I will have a look once Tim has had his say, but a few initial comments. 1. I am not sure why you say that there are inadequate sources for articles on some sites. The designations always appear to provide sufficient for a stub article. 2. You refer to "Parks and gardens of exceptional interest, sometimes considered to be internationally important". The second part is vague and it is not in the source, so far as I can see. 3. The primary source in similar lists is generally the designation. Is there a reason you do not use it? You seem to be using a shorter summary of the same source. 4. Some of the descriptions are too short. They should convey more useful information to the reader. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley, please go first. I'd much prefer to bring up the rear after your much more expert input. Tim riley talk 21:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles - Thanks very much for agreeing to take a look. Taking your preliminary points in order:
  • Stubs - I agree that in most cases you can find enough to do a Start, e.g. Bailey Park, Abergavenny, Bertholey House, which I've written from scratch. The challenge is something like Brynderwen or Pant-y-Goitre House, where you've really only got a few sentences worth. That said, I take the point and can look to expand these. However, for the purposes of this list, do you think the linked approach is ok?
  • Looking at the criteria, there is no requirement for an article on each item, so that is fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • International importance - Agreed and removed, not quite sure where that came from;
  • Primary source - Sorry if I'm a little slow on the uptake here. The official Cadw designation is given in the Reference number column, with a link to the document. The reference/citation in the Notes column is to the corresponding RCAHMW record. It is, at least to me, a peculiarity of the Welsh system that Cadw and the Royal Commission each maintain their own official records, with differing designation numbers and sometimes different spellings/terminology for the same sites. But they do, probably for historic reasons, the Commission predating Cadw by some 75 years, and it seemed helpful to give readers access to both the official records. Does this answer your question?
  • Two official sources is as you say unusual, and I have not come across it before. I would personally have put both in the reference number column, but that is a matter of personal preference. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not create any parameters for RCAHMW/Coflein numbers in the template and I think that having them could be confusing for readers as the two systems do not quite match. Cadw only has a single reference number that covers an entire park/garden site. Some RCAHMW records cover that same site in full but others are for individual elements within it such as deer park, Japanese garden and kitchen garden. I think Scotland has something similar with its Canmore (database). EdwardUK (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edward makes a good point. In expanding the notes I came across, as one example, Troy House, which Cadw covers in the one record, while RCAHMW has six!; the park (700389), the garden (266097), the kitchen garden (23109), the game larder (23108), the house itself (20938), and the lodges (20936). There's no denying the complexity which arises from the multiple "official" records, but I hope the list makes it as clear as possible for the reader. KJP1 (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too short Notes - A very fair criticism. I shall look to expand the short ones over the next day of so.
Have now tried to expand these throughout. I hope I've got the right balance between too little and too much. I'd be pleased to revisit any where you think more is still needed. KJP1 (talk)
Look forward to further comments. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its heightened status reflected an increased recognition of the importance of historic landscapes; Elisabeth Whittle, president of the Welsh Historic Gardens Trust writing, "historic parks and gardens are an integral part of the Welsh archaeological and architectural heritage." This confusing and - I think - ungraamatical. Text separated by a smeicolon should be capable of being two sentences, which the second half is not. Maybe "Its heightened status reflected an increased recognition of the importance of historic landscapes, and Elisabeth Whittle, president of the Welsh Historic Gardens Trust observes that "historic parks and gardens are an integral part of the Welsh archaeological and architectural heritage."
Done - by splitting.
  • "In the 20th century Henry Avray Tipping created four gardens, all of which feature at Grade II* on the Cadw /ICOMOS Register." This is too wordy. How about "In the 20th century Henry Avray Tipping created four gardens, all of which are Grade II*."
Done - as suggested.
  • No changed needed, but it seems strange that Cadw does not give the area of sites.
Noted, and agree.
  • "the park was created by Roger Bigod, great-grandson of William Marshal who greatly expanded the castle in the late 12th century." The date that Bigod created the park would be more relevant than that William Marshall was one of those who built the castle, which is not part of the site.
Done.
  • "Originally common land, later developed as an urban park. In the 19th century, it was notable for its horse racing events and in the 21st it accommodates sports grounds and a children's playground." There is material to expand this short description.
Done - have tried an expansion.
  • Dewstow House. The description is misleading. It only covers the underground gardens, and the Cadw designation states that they were only part of the site. The description also says that they were largely covered over, but the ref just says some features.
Done - I hope it is now clearer.
  • Glen Usk. Another description which could be expanded.
Done - by another expansion.
  • "with possible attributions to Samuel Lapidge". I am not sure what this means.
Done - it wasn't clear, but I hope it is now.
  • You twice link and describe the bee of Gwent.
Done - by removal of the first mention at Coldbrook.
  • Lower Duffryn House. This is designated solely for its gardens, but most of the description is about the house.
Done - I've tried to expand it, and put the focus back on the garden rather than the house.
Much appreciated and much improved through the comments. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I have tried to pre-empt you, in anticipation of the next batch, by expanding some of the shorter remaining entries! KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The grounds of an episcopal palace of the mediaeval Bishops of Llandaff, the building was restored from 1894 as his home by Henry Avray Tipping." This is confusing. "his home" should refer back to the bishop, and I initially took it that way and had to do a double take.
Done - by rewording.
  • "Another house and garden by Tipping". You should not have "another" in a sortable list as it may not be the next item when sorted. You should also give Tipping's full name and link it each time for the same reason. The general rule is that links should be repeated in sortable lists.
Done - removed "another" and put the links back in.
  • "Another house and garden by Tipping, supported by Eric Francis". I think you mean "assisted" rather than "supported"?
Done.
  • "The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales (RCAHMW) describes New Cemetery". I think that the roles of Cadw and RCAHW should be covered in the lead. The fact that the Cadw designation covers whole sites and there are often several for each site in RCAHW designations could be explained in a note.
Done - almost (see below).
  • "a Victorian nuttery". What is a nuttery? Is there a suitable article to link to?
Done. It's a orchard of nut-bearing trees. The Victorians liked this sort of feature, a variant is a stumpery. Unfortunately, we've no suitable link that I've found, so I've expanded the note.
  • "The Tal-y-coed estate was owned by Joseph Bradney, an antiquarian and author of A History of Monmouthshire from the Coming of the Normans into Wales down to the Present Time, a multi-volume history of the county" You should give the date of publication.
Done.
  • The Argoed. When a site name in a sortable list starts with "The", Template:Sortname should be used to sort on the significant word, not "The".
Not Done - see below.
Done - EdwardUK
  • "An ancient home of the Proberts". The source says "laid out in the time of the Probert family who then owned the estate". That does not support "ancient home".
Done.
  • "the property was owned by John Wedgwood, son of Josiah, who was a enthusiastic plantsman, a founder member of the Royal Horticultural Society". This appears to mean that Josiah was the plantsman, but the context suggests John.
Done - by rewording.
  • "by members of the Monmouth bourgeoisie". "bourgeoisie" in this context in POV.
Done - have used the source phrasing.
  • "Elements of the gardens and a small landscape park developed in the 18th century and re-worked in the 19th." "were developed". Presumably they did not develop themselves.
Done.
  • "a rare, listed, dovecote". Dovecotes are not rare and the source does not say that they are. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Dudley - many thanks indeed. I shall get onto these asap. And thanks for the tip on links - I'd actually taken out the multiple Tipping links per FAC! KJP1 (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles / EdwardUK - Dudley, thanks very much for these. I've actioned almost everything. Unfortunately, I don't know how to use the SORT feature, in relation to The Argoed, The Hendre, The Hill and The Kymin. I tried but just messed it up. I've pinged Edward who, I'm sure, will succeed where I've failed! And while I have his attention, I'd also like to add another footnote, like Note 1 about the grid references at the start of the table. As you suggest, a footnote giving an example of the different record-keeping approaches of Cadw and the RCAHMW would help the reader. But I don't know how to add another footnote. I'm only really comfortable with sfn, where I'd use efn, but that doesn't work here. Hopefully, Edward will be able to show me the way. Thanks very much indeed for your comments. They have much improved the list. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reordered the "the" entries and added the sortname. For the footnotes efn does not work if you want a footnote that contains citations, for that you will need to use Refn - for example {{Refn|group=note|An example: Cadw has A<ref>citation 1</ref> RCAHMW has B and C<ref>citation 2</ref><ref>citation 3</ref>}} - depending on the examples used it could be confusing to say that Cadw only has one record where RCAHMW could have many. Both can have additional records for other non-garden or structural elements (fountains, walls...) which in the case of Cadw would be listed buildings (or scheduled monuments), so with Troy House for example Cadw also has several records (walled garden, house...) - as I can not see how it would be possible to clearly and concisely explain this in a footnote I think that the better option would be to avoid the issue by emphasising the park/garden aspect of the records and using only examples from Coflein that reflect this such as park, country house garden or kitchen garden. EdwardUK (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EdwardUK - Edward - first off, thanks very much for sorting the The Sort. Appreciated. And for the advice on the Notes. I understand your concern regarding the challenge of making the complexities of listing clear in a footnote. Let me have a ponder on that and see if I can come up with something we all think works. If I can't, then we can follow your suggested approach. Thanks again, for your advice here, and for creating the lists. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EdwardUK I am not sure why say efn does not work with citations.{{efn|Does this work?<ref>It seems so</ref>}} This looks OK to me, and much simpler than refn. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you're right, I have tested it and it works with efn, though the documentation for the efn and refn templates suggests that it should not. however the efn will still need group=note so that it displays together with the other footnote, rather than using a separate notelist. EdwardUK (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I do not understand group=note, but that obviously does not matter if you do. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, have tried a footnote. The first thing is, it worked! So, thanks both for that. The second thing is, does it explain the point to the reader with sufficient clarity? Let me know what you think. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it to park and/or garden rather than historic landscape to avoid any confusion with the Cadw register of landscapes of historic interest in Wales. One of these, The Lower Wye Valley (HLW (Gt) 3), has several of these parks/gardens within it. Apart from that it seems to explain it well, and I wonder if it may be useful to also add something similar to the register section of Cadw/ICOMOS article. EdwardUK (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's a good point, and your change makes it clearer. Let's see what Dudley thinks, and then if we're all in agreement, I'll put a similar note in the main Cadw/ICOMOS article.
p.s. I suppose that means we need a List of registered historic landscapes in Wales? Sigh. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For Wales it is indeed a separate list, which can be accessed here, [2], by filtering out everything but Registered Historic Landscapes. At a quick count, there appear to be around 50. They're basically quite broad, the Lower Wye Valley, the Lleyn Peninsula and Bardsey Island. I'm not sure whether England has something similar? I'm not seeing reference to it on the Historic England search site. I think it would be relatively easy to do something like the SSIs list, although how well they would fit within Principal areas, I'm not sure. I suspect some may cross boundaries. KJP1 (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Crossing boundaries is very common. Many SSSIs are in two counties and are listed in both. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
58 sites in total - and the Cadw/NHAW citation template has already been set up to work for them. The Cadw article mentions historic landscapes, but the link was to Historic landscape characterisation, about the English equivalent. The number is small enough that we should be able to create a single list/article on the Welsh historic landscapes that includes the full list, rather than breaking it up by region. EdwardUK (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
update - article has been created: Register of Landscapes of Historic Interest in Wales - EdwardUK (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles - Dudley, thanks very much indeed for the very thorough review. It has been extremely helpful, and has greatly improved the list. Have Edward and I been able to address all the issues, or is there something outstanding that I've missed? Best regards and thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This looks fine, but two final comments.
  • "Between 1974 and 1996, the county was known by the ancient title of Gwent,[3] recalling the mediaeval Welsh kingdom." This is not relevant. I would delete.
My only hesitation here is that a number of the important studies, particularly John Newman's Gwent/Monmouthshire, but also Whittle's Glamorgan and Gwent, and, although I've not used it here but may in the future, the official county history, The Gwent County History, all use Gwent in their titles. Not an issue for those of us steeped in the history of local government reorganisations in the UK, but it may help clarify for the wider world that Gwent and Monmouthshire are the same place, rather than two different places. Additionally, some related bodies, such as the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust, still use Gwent in their titles. If you're not persuaded, however, I can take it out. KJP1 (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope it does not sound patronising to say that it is not a question of whether I am persuaded. The nominator has to decide whether the criticism is correct, and if not politely disagree. That said, looking again, there is an apparent contradiction. You say that the present county was formed in 1994, and then that it was known as Gwent between 1974 and 1996. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The apparent discrepancy is that the the present county was created by the 1974 Act, but that act, which gained Royal assent in 1994, did not become operative until 1 April 1996. On balance, I'd prefer to keep the reference to Gwent in. KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that "the 1974 Act" is a typo for 1994 Act. For clarity, I suggest "The present county was formed under the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, which came into effect in 1996. It has an area of 850 km2 (330 sq mi),[5] with a population of 93,200 as of 2021. It comprises some sixty percent of the historic county of Monmouthshire (known between 1974 and 1996 as Gwent).[3]" Dudley Miles (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. KJP1 (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Cadw/ICOMOS Register uses a single designation for each historic park and/or garden, the reference number in the final column of the list. Individual sites may, however, have multiple historic listing designations. As an example, Abergavenny Castle has the Cadw/ICOMOS designation for its garden.[11] It has Cadw listed building designations for the castle;[12] for the hunting lodge, now the town's museum;[13] for the gate lodge and its gates and wall;[14][15] and for the castle's outer wall.[16] It is also a designated scheduled monument.[17] Lastly, the RCAHMW maintains three records for the site on its National Monuments Record of Wales, Coflein, database: for the garden;[18] for the castle;[19] and for the remains of the town's walls." I find this confusing. It seems to imply a distinction between a Cadw/ICOMOS listing and a Cadw one. If so, you need to clarify. Also, what is "It" in "It is also a designated scheduled monument." Dudley Miles (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have tried to clarify - both as to what the "it" is, and the Cadw/ICOMOS bit. The listings for the gardens, the listings of the buildings, and the scheduled monument buildings are all Cadw's. The slight quirk is that the gardens/parks register is officially the Cadw/ICOMOS register. I don't know why - ICOMOS must have provided support in some way, probably funding, or possibly advice. Anyways, I hope it's clearer now. KJP1 (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley - sincere thanks for your very detailed review. It has resulted in a better list, and I appreciate that, and the time and effort you've expended. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 20:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_list_candidates/Registered_historic_parks_and_gardens_in_Monmouthshire/archive1&oldid=1147443299"