Talk:Blaise Castle Estate/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 11:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Very pleased to pick this up. Will complete over the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will be around and happy to respond to any comments over the weekend and early next week but from 13-13 April I will be away with little or no internet access.&mdash; Rod talk 21:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Rod, sorry, poor timing on my part. We can wait until you're back, or see how we go and put it on ice if necessary? Your call entirely. KJP1 (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy to go for it for the next four days and, if there are still outstanding issues give me a little leeway after that.&mdash; Rod talk 07:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Articles passes quick-fail assessment. Main review to follow.

Main review
1. It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose)
 * The standard of prose is high but I do have some comments, below. The first "General Structure" also applies to Criteria 3 (a) and (b):
 * General structure
 * I find the structure of the article, and the infobox, a little confusing. The article is entitled "Blaise Castle", which I take to refer to the folly. But the content is broader, encompassing the castle, Blaise Castle House, Blaise Hamlet and the wider estate, including some of its other notable buildings and features. In fact, the article devotes considerably more text to these wider aspects of the estate than to the castle itself. The position is similar in the infobox. This lists the heritage designations for the castle and hamlet, the house and two of the estate buildings. The first two listings, Scheduled monument, and the first Grade II*, definitely refer to the castle, but the client/architect details above them (James Harford and William Paty) relate to Blaise Castle House. Two suggestions: could the article be renamed Blaise Castle Estate, as per the Parks and Gardens UK website, or could the lede be reworded to, something like, "Blaise Castle is a folly built in 1766 near Henbury in Bristol (formerly in Gloucestershire), England. The castle sits within the Blaise Castle Estate, which also includes Blaise Castle House......" This would make clear that the article is actually covering both the castle and its wider environment. The infobox would also need re-ordering.


 * I have moved the article as suggested and tweaked the lead and infobox to try to illustrate that the article covers the whole estate. In local usage (which I know might be different to common usage in the sources) the whole area is just known as Blaise Castle (but I can't produce a source to back that up).&mdash; Rod talk 10:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Moving the article appears to have confused the bot which tells me that you have failed the article.&mdash; Rod talk 11:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh b*gg*r. How about if I move the review to the new article? KJP1 (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Someone at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations may have a better solution. I will continue working on the article in the light of your comments below, but not add any responses here until resolved (or a new one started).&mdash; Rod talk 11:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think normal service is resumed but I've left a note on the GA Discussion page in case I need to do anything more. KJP1 (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will continue the discussion here, but happy to move if needed.&mdash; Rod talk 11:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * "Blaise Castle House is an 18th-century mansion house and estate. It is now run as a museum by Bristol City Council. The museum is housed in a late 18th century, Grade II* listed mansion." - Isn't the third sentence a repeat of the previous two, with the added detail of the listing for the House? I'd suggest adding the listing detail to the first sentence, and removing the third sentence, i.e. "Blaise Castle House is a Grade II* listed 18th-century mansion house and estate. It is now run as a museum by Bristol City Council." Otherwise, it sounds like there are two mansions.
 * ❌ - Have you missed this one, or do you want to discuss it?
 * ✅ Done now, thanks. KJP1 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "and various subsidiary buildings the parkland is.." - suggest a comma, "and various subsidiary buildings, the parkland is.."
 * "The house is now the venue for a museum run by Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery, which holds a variety of collections." - The first part of this sentence repeats the information given in the first paragraph of the lede. Additionally, I think "the venue for" is unnecessary. Being pendantic, the first para. says it's run by Bristol City Council, with a link, and this says it's run by "Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery", with another link. I suspect the latter is the more strictly accurate. You could remove the whole of the first sentence of the third para. and have this para. just focus on the collections within the museum. And change the wording in the first para. to Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery.
 * Early history
 * "After the Anglo-Saxon invasion and subsequent conversion to Christianity" - the "subsequent conversion" of what? The land? Suggest remove.
 * "the estate picked up its association with Saint Blaise that lives on in the estate's name." - "picked up" sounds odd, like it just found it. The second source indicates it comes from a chapel to St Blaise which stood on the site. Suggest re-wording.
 * "Following the Dissolution of the Monasteries the estate.." - suggest comma, "Following the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the estate.."
 * Revised in line with suggestions above.&mdash; Rod talk


 * Blaise Castle House
 * "The estate was owned by a sugar merchant, Thomas Farr, who bought it from Astry's descendents in 1762.." - a clarifying date missing? Perhaps, "In the later 18th century, the estate was owned by a sugar merchant, Thomas Farr, who bought it from Astry's descendents in 1762.."
 * "the estate was bought in 1778 to Denham Skeate." - you need "by" not "to".
 * "John Harford - isn't the John Harford you link here actually his son? Ditto in the lede.
 * "The Picture Room projects into a portico which has six Ionic columns" - "projects" is a bit odd. Perhaps, "extends"?
 * "During World War II it was occupied by the armed forces." - The previous sentence references the wider estate, rather than the house. Suggest replacing "it" with "the house", i.e. "During World War II the house was occupied by the armed forces."
 * Revised, however the sources I've looked at about "Harford" are not consistent, possibly his name was Joseph Harford (per this) but I have left it as "the Harford family".&mdash; Rod talk 11:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The castle
 * "Blaise Castle was immortalised by being described (by a character who frequently lies) as "the finest place in England" in Jane Austen's novel Northanger Abbey." - This reads oddly, although I appreciate it may be as a result of the, rather acrimonious, content war of 2006! And I'm personally not a fan of "immortalised". Having read Chapter 11, perhaps something like the following: "The castle was referenced by Jane Austen in her novel Northanger Abbey. John Thorpe, planning a trip to Bristol with Catherine Morland and her brother, describes the castle as "the finest place in England — worth going fifty miles at any time to see.”
 * "It was inhabited well into the 20th century with sumptuous internal decoration." - "well" is probably superfluous, and "sumptuous", especially uncited, sounds a little POV. Perhaps; "It was inhabited into the 20th century and was elaborately decorated internally."
 * "It is a Grade II* listed building. It was restored in 1957." - Rather short? Perhaps; "It is a Grade II* listed building and was restored in 1957."
 * Tweaked as per suggestions.&mdash; Rod talk 12:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Blaise Hamlet
 * "ne plus ultra" - italicise and link? ne plus ultra
 * not sure about this one as it is within a direct quote, but done.&mdash; Rod talk 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "laid out the road map for virtually all garden suburbs that followed." - Not literally! Perhaps; "was the inspiration for.."
 * "and encircles the village green with its sundial." - The sundial encircles the green?
 * Tweaked per suggestions.&mdash; Rod talk 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The estate
 * "Along with Blaise Hamlet, the parkland is listed, Grade II*, on the.." - Not sure the commas around Grade II* are necessary.
 * "The Regency architect John Nash.." - You've already introduced him in the section on Blaise Hamlet so I'm not sure he needs reintroduction.
 * "The grounds, include a gorge cut by the Hazel Brook through Bristol's limestone." - No comma after "grounds,"
 * "The gorge features a selection of landscape, including.." - not sure about a selection of landscape? Perhaps; "The gorge has a number of landscape features, including..."
 * "The key for the nearby Kings Weston Roman Villa can be collected at the museum." - While useful to know, I wonder if this shades into guide book information. And it's a bit of a pedestrian note at the end of an interesting article. Suggest removal?
 * Tweaked per suggestions. I have left the nearby Roman Villa as often part of the same visit but removed the bit about the key.&mdash; Rod talk 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. I am still unsure about the wording relating to "the Harford family" and would welcome further suggestions.&mdash; Rod talk 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for all of the above. We'll easily be done before your leave! It obviously was the older Harford who bought the estate, the younger being about 4 at the time. But they've followed the, confusing, tradition of naming father/son identically. Have to walk the dog now but I'll have a think and resume when I get back. KJP1 (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Apart from the first point in the lede (highlighted), these are all done. If you've not just overlooked it, happy to discuss. KJP1 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought I had done this removing the duplication etc. Now "The house is now run as a museum by Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery, with the estate being owned by Bristol City Council."&mdash; Rod talk 15:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, on here, one just wishes one could pick up the phone. The problem, as I see it, is with the following three sentences in the lede. "The castle sits within the Blaise Castle Estate, which also includes Blaise Castle House, an 18th-century mansion house and estate. The house is now run as a museum by Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery, with the estate being owned by Bristol City Council. The museum is housed in a late 18th century, Grade II* listed mansion." The mansion referred to in the 3rd of these sentences is exactly the same mansion referred to in the first sentence, with the addition of "Grade II* Listed." To me, this sounds like there are two 18th century mansions, which there aren't. KJP1 (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy to give you my phone number but I think I see what you mean now. I have had a go at revising and clarifying.&mdash; Rod talk 16:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Bingo!!!!
 * ✅ All done, thanks. KJP1 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

John Scandrett Harford I think this is the only issue left in this section. I think part of the problem is that the Wikipedia page on John Scandrett Harford is wrong. I believe that it incorrectly conflates facts about the father, John Scandrett Harford (born 1754, died 1815 as evidenced on page 2 of this and the son, John Scandrett Harford (born 1787 [other sources say 1785/6], died 1866 as evidenced here). I think the father bought the Blaise Estate and built the mansion and the hamlet, while the son built the Picture Room. I think this is supported by Foyle/Pevsner and by Jenkins. And it fits the dates. Plainly the Wikipedia article can't be right re. the purchase as the son would have been an infant of between 2 and 4 years when the estate was purchased in 1789. And it's no more likely right about the hamlet which was built 1810-11. The father was still alive and the son would have been in his 20s.

Setting all this aside, I think it impacts on the article at 2 points. Firstly, the lede, the relevant bit of which says; "After Farr's bankruptcy the estate was sold several times until purchased by the family of John Scandrett Harford who, in 1789, demolished the existing house and built the Neoclassical Blaise Castle House which his family occupied until 1926 when it was bought by Bristol City Council." I'd suggest re-wording to something like; "After Farr's bankruptcy, the estate was sold several times until purchased by John Harford (or John Scandrett Harford the Elder) who, in 1789, demolished the existing house and built the Neoclassical Blaise Castle House which his family occupied until 1926 when it was bought by Bristol City Council." The second area of concern is the Blaise Hamlet section, the relevant portion of which reads; "Blaise Hamlet was built around 1811 for retired employees of Quaker banker and philanthropist John Scandrett Harford, who owned Blaise Castle House." Again, I think it should read; "Blaise Hamlet was built around 1811 for retired employees of Quaker banker and philanthropist John Harford, who owned Blaise Castle House." Although, as you've already said this in the Blaise Castle House section, you could just have; "Blaise Hamlet was built around 1811 for Harford's retired employees."

The reference to the son and the picture gallery in the Blaise Castle House section is correctly linked, of course. I do hope this is all clear!


 * b (MoS)
 * The article follows all of the MoS requirements necessary for GA (I think!).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references)
 * The references mostly seem fine, but some comments/issues below:
 * Reference 3d "Ne plus ultra" - Interestingly, my 2011 Foyle/Pevsner Somerset: North and Bristol, has "nec plus ultra, a legitimate, alternative spelling. I agree the HE site has "ne". But, apropos the discussion above, it is italicised in the Foyle/Pevsner! It's (p=400) if you want to put Foyle/Pevsner in the Bibliography.
 * Reference 10 - this just takes me to the Bristol Post main page. It's used twice. Replace? Or can you save in a way that takes readers direct to the article?
 * References 12,25 & 28 - can't check as don't have them. No reason to think they're a problem, however. As a reassurance, have checked all of Foyle, and they're absolutely fine.
 * Reference 13 - Jenkins doesn't specify the cause of Farr's bankruptcy, but the other does. While we're on Jenkins, he does clarify that the younger Harford was also called John. Also, I'd use him (p=685) for the two long, unreferenced, sentences in the Blaise Castle house section about the museum collections. I quite like his description; "The blandness of the display has its own appeal."
 * Reference 18 is used twice. But it's about the Picture Room in the Blaise Castle Museum and in neither instance does it support the text. I suspect it's a copy/paste error.
 * Reference 32 - the title's misspelt as "Balise".


 * I've had a go at the references as you suggest. I don't know what is going on with the Bristol Post site today so I have replaced it.&mdash; Rod talk 15:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ All done, thanks. KJP1 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources)
 * With the exception of the issue with Reference 10, above, the sources are all reliable and the citations function.
 * ✅ All done, thanks. KJP1 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * c (OR)
 * No evidence of Original Research.
 * d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations)
 * One possible concern, below:
 * The copyvio checker shows up a close match with this website . I strongly suspect that website's lifted text from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. But worth having a look. I'll leave as On Hold till you have.
 * Definite copy of text from wikipedia by Mike Hardisty Photography. His article was published on 1 April 2010 & if the you at the wp article on 15 March 2010 you can see some of the text was copied from wp.&mdash; Rod talk 15:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ As suspected and now all fine, thanks. KJP1 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects)
 * Following the nominator's responses to widen the article's ambit to the Blaise Castle Estate, the article provides good coverage of all of the major features, with one caveat below:
 * Blaise Castle - I think the specific section on the castle would benefit from a description of the architecture. Other elements of the estate, the mansion, the hamlet, have such descriptions, but the castle doesn't, either in the lede or in the specific section. HE gives more than sufficient material: circular, three turrets, two storeys, built of ashlar, limestone dressings, crenellated parapet, arrow slits etc. In this regard, I'm not sure that "mock-Gothic" is the best description/link. Would Gothick work better? HE uses the "k".
 * I've changed mock-gothic to Gothic Revival in the lead & added a brief description of the folly as suggested.&mdash; Rod talk 15:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ All done, thanks. KJP1 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * b (focused)
 * The article has an appropriate, but not unnecessary, level of detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy
 * The article's approach is free of bias.

5. It is stable
 * The article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
 * The images look fine to me. Appropriate, appropriately tagged and with the right permissions.
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions)
 * Generally fine. One minor query below:
 * Does the Blaise Castle Mansion picture need the ",in mid July 2008" ending?
 * That bit of the caption removed.&mdash; Rod talk 15:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ All done, thanks. KJP1 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall
 * Pass/Fail:

Other comments
I just had a look through the article prior to replying to the latest comment at WT:GAN, and while it's in generally good shape, I think it still needs a bit of work to attain GA status. There's one place where it clearly doesn't meet the manual of style lead section criterion, and that is its length: the article is about 7500 prose characters, which according to WP:LEADLENGTH indicates a lead section of one or two paragraphs; this one is three paragraphs. I doubt this will require much work, but it should be done; I'd also recast the "listing" sentence, which hasn't been changed since the article name revision. I would also avoid unnecessary use of parentheses in the lead section—I'm not entirely sure why Gloucestershire is mentioned given how many centuries prior to the castle's construction that Bristol became a county, and the two names for the same Harcourt is a bit clumsy (was he really called "the Elder"?)—and I was surprised to see a wikilink to the wrong Harcourt in the infobox (it has been removed).

I have made a few copyedits, and one of them included combining the John Nash works in the final section of the article, "The estate": I moved the dairy up to go along with the conservatory and the almshouses. After a subsequent rereading of the article, however, I realized that the mentions of the conservatory and the almshouses were redundant. The conservatory is covered in the Blaise Castle House section (though not the fact that it was connected to the house by Cockerell over 25 years later, which is stated in reference 3 and 33 [identical sources, so these should probably be combined]). My initial impression is that the almshouses were something separate, but as best I can tell these are the houses built by Nash in Blaise Hamlet, which already has its own section and shouldn't be mentioned here as if it were something different.

Also in that section, it says Parts of Repton's designs still exist, notably the carriage drive which winds its way from the house. The way this reads I would have expected the entire carriage drive to be extant, but if I'm reading ref 3 correctly, at least one section was later rerouted, so perhaps a slight rewording is in order.

As the article is no longer named "Blaise Castle", I think the section named "The castle" should probably be renamed "Blaise Castle". I do believe that Blaise Hamlet is no longer contiguous with the rest of the estate; perhaps that could be clarified in the article.

Finally, I'd check to see whether any other references are duplicates, and whether wording is consistent. For example, Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery is sometimes preceded by "the" and sometimes not. I'd probably go with a consistent "the". BlueMoonset (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits and comments. I have tried to address these, but please let me know if I have missed any.&mdash; Rod talk 19:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok I think we're all good to go now. I'll pass the article this evening if there are no further comments. KJP1 (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing further from me. I rearranged the lead a bit, and made some copyedits to the recently revised material, which satisfies my few remaining concerns. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Very much appreciated and thanks for your input and help. KJP1 (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)