Talk:Cragside

Tallest tree in England
I have removed the reference to Cragside containing the tallest tree in England. This was unreferenced, and although it may once have been the case, this article from Countrylife.co.uk lists the 10 tallest trees in Britain - only one of them is in England, and this is at Dunster Woods in Somerset at 60m tall. Feel free to add back if required, but I think the claim should be backed up by a reference or source.J mcquillen (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would appear to have the tallest Scots Pine. KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Change of photo
Hello. With this edit today changed the infobox photo for a much better one which showed less of a big bank and more of the house. This is unarguably an improvement, thanks. The only thing I do feel may have been lost in the change is a bit of context: in the old one by you could see the house at the top of a hill and in a generally somewhat rugged-looking situation, whereas in the new one it's straight on across the forecourt. Looking up and to the right you can see some wooded hill but it's more difficult to absorb the feel of the place from it. Is some sort of compromise possible here? If there were a photo much more of the house which still somehow captured the cragginess, that would be great. I'm not up for a fight over this but just wanted to mention it and see what others thought. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , Like you, I've no entrenched view as to which particular photo should be in the infobox but I do think it is best for an article about a building to have a lead photo that shows the building effectively. This can sometimes conflict with the use of an "artistic" view. Commons, from which I took the current one, does have a selection, which may provide some assistance.
 * On a related point, I was struck, when reading the article, that there is not a great deal on the architecture and history. The sections on Electricity and Media appearances have better coverage, which is a serious imbalance! I may come back with an expansion, time and other demands permitting. I'd be very interested in your input if I do. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , in my view, the problem with that one, which I did see, is its rather "washed-out" appearance. Try, try and try again, as Martin might say! KJP1 (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi ...  Agreed on both counts, and thanks for the speedy reply! I think the "artistic" question is of limited or no importance; it should be about the building and its context, but not so the context overpowers seeing what the thing looks like! If you check the edit history you will see me ineptly messing around with it - I tried for the top left corner of the previous one, with so-so results. I did find on Commons one that I quite liked and I thought came close to hitting the spot - "Cragside_House_and_rockery,_Rothbury,_England" though (a) I couldn't make it display on the page and (b) on a second look I was less happy with it - there's a great picture of the house and rocks but a LOT of one particular tree. So I went back to your version, but may go on looking. I did have a bit of a look on Commons but, with a couple of honourable exceptions, I was a bit disappointed with the general standard. I will also certainly keep an eye out, and look forward to, for your planned expansion. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * washed out - oh yeah, indeed, maybe the original material just isn't right ... I tried lots of filters and couldn't really get any effect much between "Kodakchrome from 50 years ago that your Mum kept on the windowsill" and "Insane Gothic Horror" so I sort of went sheesh and put the kettle on instead ... DBaK (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Often the best approach - except I hate tea, so replace turning on the kettle with extracting the cork, or, more commonly these days, turning the screw cap. KJP1 (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This would be splendid if we could get the copyright! KJP1 (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha! Perfect. And only £220 for the 3D version. DBaK (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Geograph is a wonderful thing. ,. Not saying either's better but there are plenty there. KJP1 (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The photo we had definitely fails to convey the "magic" of the magician's home. Keep looking! KJP1 (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Better? Gives the house in its setting, which you rightly said it needs. But enough of the house? KJP1 (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the current one is pretty good. In trying to look at it I am being hindered by ?Wikimedia server weirdness so I can't see the full-sized images when I click. If it is telling me the truth about image size then it may be a bit small for larger screens, but until I can really see it. that's a bit of a guess. I also think it's maybe a little heavy on the tree framing and could do with a crop. I agree that it is MUCH better on the context, because you now see/feel how the house fits into its landscape. I also agree that we should still keep looking! The perfect photo does, presumably, exist, although seeing the level of difficulty we've had here I do wonder if there is a real problem with vantage points or something. But it's all good so far. DBaK (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * PS the next time I am there I may try pointing a camera at it myself, but I see no reason to think that I might produce anything better ... DBaK (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , Agreed. I think it's the best we've tried, but it's still not quite there. We want something that shows the house to best effect (probably the West front), and shows its setting, from which much of the drama derives. It would be great if you had a go; knowing exactly what we want may help a good deal. KJP1 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

, and any other interested parties ... I have been thinking a lot about this photo issue. Last night I watched again the ludicrous but rather wonderful Glorious Gardens from Above episode which features Cragside alongside a couple of other places of spiritual or temporal bliss. Now, the USP of the apparently insane but very charming and knowledgeable person in the balloon is, erm, the balloon. So watching it – rather more carefully because of this Wretched Encyclopaedic Publication&trade; – I was very struck by how hard the building is to photograph - that is, they've got a balloon and still only had the few stock shots that we have all seen; probably more relevantly, since I guess the balloon cannot legally be flown anywhere that useful, they were clearly using drones for photography a fair old bit and it is from these that I think the better images may have emerged. To cut a long story short, I fear that the best photo of the house – the one we want – can only be taken if you are hovering about 100ft (30.48 guineas in old money, or possibly 95.24; I get confused) above the bridge, because the topography just isn't photo-friendly in that way ... or at least it is not that friendly towards our specific objectives here. I may be wrong (I usually am) but this was my strong impression. I will, though, have another very close look next time I am there. Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well many thanks for the nudge, DBaKka. I might now edit this article or even read it for the first time. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC) ... but yes, a great band in its day!
 * Thanks Martin, that would be great. Erm, ? Thanks DBaK (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I don't think Tim's got a balloon. KJP1 (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, bother! Should I buy him one? DBaK (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is some confusion here. I haven't got a balloon, but my partner asserts that I am a baboon. Something got lost in translation, probably.  Tim riley  talk    19:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * so you are denying the other rumour? I see. DBaK (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A fagotto? Well now...  Tim riley  talk    21:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's just leave all talk of the "pink oboe" out of this, shall we? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Re-ordering
Given the house has great historical and great architectural/artistic significance, I'd suggest it needs separate sections, first, one on The History, and then one on The Architecture, furnishings, art etc. Are people ok with that? KJP1 (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - sounds absolutely right to me, thanks. DBaK (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

That pesky H and its preceding indefinite article
Firstly, huge thanks to for all the fantastic, painstaking work on the present expansion. It's been very interesting and gratifying to see the article develop. Secondly, are we going for an hydraulic or a hydraulic? At the moment it is a 2-2 draw and I feel that the article should be consistent. It appears that KJP1's preference is the "an" one, and as he's doing all the hard work at the moment perhaps that should prevail; speaking as an anonymous IP user who just happens to be passing by I prefer "a" but would not be willing to indulge in fisticuffs over it. I think it's much more important that the article agrees with itself. Best wishes to all 82.34.71.202 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Consistency is all! I shall go for my, arcane and peculiar, "an". But you are very welcome to make the corrections. I need to find sources for the Modern Magician. Is 82.34.71.202 your nom de plume? Very inventive. KJP1 (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well done and thanks. Haha, if 82.34.71.202 were my nom de plume then one of its works should certainly be entitled "Addictive behaviour in IT systems and how to fight it (with rather limited success)". I'm on a self-imposed, computer-enforced break and cannot log in for another week and should NOT be here ... ho hum. 82.34.71.202 (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "an hydraulic"? Baulics! If you sound the aspirate in any word beginning with "h" it should be "a", not "an". If you actually say, like my late grandmother, "an 'otel" all bets are off.  Tim riley  talk    20:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Off to correct them now, sir. KJP1 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind that I popped in and did so. I mean ... long rambling discussion here omitted ... yes, I did. Oh and I rather like "baulics" and will try to use it at every opportunity. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That IP dude is like sooooooooooooo last week. DBaK (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Pause for reflection

 * Are you still on your Wikibreak? I think I'm done for the moment. I've gone through all the sources I have and think I've extracted everything that's to be extracted. Is it sufficiently comprehensive? At 43K bytes, it's a bit short, in comparison with some others I've done. And at 102 cites, a bit on the light-cite side too. Are there any areas you can see that are obvious by their absence? Having discussed it with Tim Riley, I'm not sure Good Article is necessary. It could go to Peer Review and then on to FAC. Anyway, any thoughts would be much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing my name taken in vain, I drop in to reinforce the view correctly attributed to me that there is no great advantage in stopping off at GAN if you think your revision of an article is potentially FA material. Straight to peer review and then on to the rigours of FAC, I'd say. As to the length, I know nothing of the topic but I don't think brevity is a bar to promotion if you have said all there is usefully to be said on the mattter. Better brevity than padding.  Tim riley  talk    20:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - "Better brevity than padding" - something that could, fairly if critically, be said of my figure. Looking forward to your comments at the PR. Best. KJP1 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello - I am back, as of this morning. I am not really au fait with the whole GA / FA / PR thing but what I can hear the sound of is sensible people proposing something that sounds sensible, so I will agree that it is a jolly good idea. As for the article itself - it's an incredibly impressive transformation and I unreservedly take my hat off to those involved. I will have a very careful look at it but, to be honest, with editors of this calibre having done such a job of work I think it's most unlikely that I will have much to contribute other than occasionally pointing at things and shouting "Look! A squirrel!" - possibly at the same time. One piece of language that was causing me pain a couple of days ago has gone in a more recent edit, and the Hydraulic Riley Ruling has relieved another one about which I was trying to be nice, but hey, comme on dit. It's very pleasing and quite important to me personally to see this very worthwhile article so much improved. Thank you. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm really glad that you like it, and I am quite pleased with how it's turned out. But it's nothing less than the house deserves. It has given me a strong desire to go again, it must have been sometime in the 90s that I last went. I'm very grateful your comment on the photo sparked my interest. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you: that's very nice. Yes, you should definitely pop in again. It is as gorgeous as ever but there are some interesting changes/improvements in ancillary but important stuff. This includes "domestic" details like traffic flow, parking and cafe/shop - I think most of that is "new" since the 90s. There is more access to other bits such as the formal garden and better information on the tech stuff; they've moved the children's playground and there's now (or maybe was before?) an alleged Labyrinth up by the Nelly's Moss Lakes. So it's all very fine, and just a bit tweaked to cope with its visitors. DBaK (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Awkward sentence?
I find this, in the Shooting Box subsection, tricky: Armstrong had spent much of his childhood at Rothbury to escape from industrial Newcastle to alleviate his poor health. - your mileage may vary, but to me the two "to"s read a little awkwardly. I would usually just fix it (I worked for 14 years for a prof who hated people pointing out problems without offering solutions) but I can't see a very obvious solution shouting and waving at me. For example, I wondered about: Armstrong had spent much of his childhood at Rothbury, escaping from industrial Newcastle to alleviate his poor health. but then someone would be along in five minutes to declare the comma wrong, changing it to Armstrong had spent much of his childhood at Rothbury escaping from industrial Newcastle to alleviate his poor health. which of course is an entirely different meaning altogether. And so on. I'll keep thinking but if in the meantime someone More Clever With Word Things has a solution, then yes please! DBaK (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to say - do edit at will. I am really not possessive - or try hard not to be! - and, as I've mentioned, I love Wiki-collaborations. KJP1 (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! DBaK (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Guidebook
, As well as a photo, an up-to-date guide would be useful. I've used the 1992, Andrew Saint and others, from the last time I went, and I've an earlier one from the 80s. I've just ordered a 2007, Hugh Dixon (?), from eBay but it would be interesting if you had access to anything more modern. As you say, it may have stuff on the Trust's more recent activities, where the article's currently a bit light. KJP1 (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - Funnily enough I had ordered the current guidebook from the NT site about an hour ago! I will be delighted to help with this. I had gone and looked through our local books and found a few deficiencies so rectified some of them. Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be excellent. The final para. of Armstrong's Heirs, which is about all we've got on the NT stewardship is thin and could definitely do with some beefing up. The guide is likely also to have some useful stuff for the Technology and Grounds sections. KJP1 (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - okey doke: watch this space, but please do not hold your breath. I ordered it directly from the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty (aside - what kind of absolute bl**dy idiot would set up an article called that ... ah yes, I remember what kind ...) website as I was unconvinced that Amazon were going to get me the most current edition, but I don't know how fast the NT delivers. I also took the opportunity to snag myself the Farnes, Lindisfarne and Gibside while I was at it. DBaK (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - well, Dixon's arrived, and is useful. But a more up-to-date version would be better still. Interestingly, he has very different figures to Heald for the two Millais's - Heald says 900 guineas for the pair, Dixon 3,400 for the Jephthah's Daughter alone. We shall have to think how we word that. KJP1 (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - interesting! (And sorry about my long silence.) I will have a look at my copy (see next edit) and see if I can contribute anything here. DBaK (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - Right, the current book. I hope it is not a disappointment to you (and does not give a problem with referencing, a topic on which I am horribly ignorant) but it is still Dixon. The bibliographical entry for Dixon in the article would do for this too, perhaps with the revision date added - it was revised in 2008, 2011, 2012 and most recently 2017, that fine fine year. More in a mo on the topic of the transfer. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Capitali{s/z}ation
I feel we might be heading for trouble (albeit minor and sortable trouble but please don't spoil my drama) with Drawing Room, Drawing room, drawing room and their other buddies. My probably annoying two penn'orth (that's 4.8d in old money, kids!) is that we should have no caps on any of them except as required at the starts of sentences and headers an ting. I might feel differently about the Owl suite or rooms - there I think there is perhaps a good case for capitali{s/z}ation there because it's the proper name, or indeed Proper Name, for the thing; that is, anyone can have a drawing room  (if you're posh/old enough!)  or a dining room, but my house ain't got no Owl room ... or even Owl Room? But what do you think? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're right. I like them and almost got them through on Chartwell, despite Tim's saying I never would. But he was proved right in the end. Do go ahead and replace, or I'll pick it up. KJP1 (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Blimey, a dining room just for owls! These artisto's, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. An owl room is where owls are kept, the Owl rooms is a suite of rooms that is named 'Owl'. Similarly, if a pretentious B&B named their bedrooms Buttercup, Daisy and Rose then I would use capitals. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - Appreciated. I think we might get away with the Owl suite, but I think Drawing/Dining etc. will have to go. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just done a couple - hope this was OK. DBaK (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - Perfect, thanks. Has the up-to-date guidebook arrived yet and does it have anything of use in it? With a little more on the Trust's recent stewardship, I think we're good to go for PR. KJP1 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see next edit where I shall reveal all. Perhaps disappointingly little. DBaK (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

NT acquisition
As mentioned above, I now have the current guidebook (very current: last revised in 2017), still by Dixon. It's possibly not that different from what's in the 2007 Dixon already used here, but this is what it says, under the heading "For all to enjoy", about the acquisition by the NT: In 1977 the house, with 911 acres of land around it, and two farms in the Coquet valley, passed to the Treasury in part-settlement of death-duties. It was then transferred to the National Trust through the auspices of the National Land Fund, aided by a generous gift from the 3rd Lord Armstrong. Substantial help was received from the Historic Buildings Council during the long restoration that followed. The house was first opened to the public in 1979. In 1991 the formal terraced gardens, glasshouses, the original estate manager's house, and parkland were acquired and reunited with the rest of the estate. So ... does this help? I worry that it does not - please feel free to ask me to check other stuff or whatever I can do that might be useful. DBaK (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - No, it is a pity Dixon doesn't have much more to say on the NT's efforts, 10 years on from his first guide. But it's still useful to have it, as we have then reviewed the most up-to-date source. I'm not sure it's worth changing the references if there's little more to be added. So, I think it is probably ready for PR. My problem here is that I'm off abroad next week and am not back till the end of the month. I did once do a PR while abroad, but you really need the time to respond quickly to comments, and access to the source books, neither of which I'll have. So, I'd suggest we wait till November. If you're ok with that, would you like it to go as a joint nomination? I think it should, as your comments, and interest, sparked the whole improvement to the article. Let me know what you think. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - that's inordinately kind of you, thank you. Yes please, I would love to be involved, though I clearly haven't done even a fraction of the work you have here - but I am still honoured. Waiting till November sounds like an excellent idea; in the meantime I will continue to look for anything which might be useful. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - Excellent. I'll kick it off when I'm back. In the interim, anything more you could find on its recent history would be very useful. That, and a great photo - launch that balloon! KJP1 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Millais paintings
I wonder if other editors have an alternative source for the price of the Millais paintings? Thinking about it, my guess is that Heald has a misprint and that 900 guineas should actually read 9,000. That would mean, using Dixon, that Jephthah cost 3,800 guineas and Chill October 5,200 guineas, 9,000 for the pair. 900 guineas seems extraordinarily cheap, even in 1875. But without a source, that would be OR. KJP1 (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's tricky! I must say that I don't really have the knowledge to comment. I do note that Heald later says that in 1910 the successor sold 102 items at Christie's for £28.5K. These included the Millais paintings along with "two Constables, three Turners, two Leightons ... as well as works by Landseer, Burne-Jones, Bonheur and many others." Looking at that, if the two Millais works had cost £9K then all of that other stuff (not allowing for inflation!) would account for the other £20K. Is that plausible? Or is it too many great painters for £20K? I find that very hard to judge. I will go on looking for other sources though. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is problematic. But they can't both be right, and I tend to think it's Heald who's got it wrong. I don't think it actually matters for PR or FAC as we're accurately reflecting the current sources, but it would be good to know for accuracy. And I wonder what price the musicals king paid for Chill October when he bought it in the 80s! On the PR front, Brian has kindly agreed to review, so with him and Tim we can be sure of a very thorough scrutiny. It would still be good to get a few more inputs however and I'll see who else I might approach. When Brian gets back, and it may be a day or two, would you be ok taking the lead on the responses. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Yes, interesting stuff ... but if we can go with the possibly wrong 900 then fine - we can keep a look-out for other sources as and when. :) And yes, I will try to mind the shop during the upcoming criticism-storm. I'm flattered you'd leave me in charge as, knowing me better, I would be more worried that I'd return to said shop to find it a heap of rubble. But yes, I will try my (limited) best. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nonsense - you'll do splendidly! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Schrocat has also kindly agreed to review. Those three will be more than sufficient, and we can then trundle on to FAC. Which can be as slow as PR. An aside; do you have a preference for when we go to FAC or is late Nov./early Dec. as good a time as any for you? KJP1 (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Tbh no time before Christmas is that great, because of my job, but I am sure that millions are in the same boat. So if you want to go ahead around then please do and I will do as much as I can. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A wierd divergence of price directions! Hope that helps. He also has details on Hearts are Trumps, of Armstrong's daughters (also p. 152), now Tate, if you want those. On the others sold in 1910, from the artists above, he only lists a Bonheur Deer Park for £241 10s and a Leighton (apparently bt from Mendel in 1875 for £998) sold for £204 10s. Mendel seems to have been a canny buyer. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reitlinger, Gerald; The Economics of Taste, Vol I: The Rise and Fall of Picture Prices 1760–1960, pp 389-390, 1961, Barrie and Rockliffe, London, who worked from the auction house records has (all essentially guinea prices of course):
 * Jephthah's Daughter: 1867, £4,200 (no details); 1875 seller "Sam Mendel." at Christies, £3,990; 1910 Armstrong seller, at Christies, £1,217 10s; 1917 to Nat Mus Wales [see below] £1,050.
 * Chill October: 1871 £1,000 (no details); 1875 seller "Sam Mendel." at Christies, £3,255; 1910 Armstrong seller, at Christies, £5,040.
 * Johnbod, Very, very helpful. I shall give thought as to how we might work this in. An addition to the footnote may well be the best approach. I suspect the answer is not in Reitlinger, given his dates, but do you have anything that tells us how much Lord Lloyd-Webber paid for Chill October in the 1980s? Many thanks indeed. KJP1 (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - Have now woven Reitlinger's prices into the footnote. Many thanks, KJP1 (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I think I was planning to edit here some time ago. £900 for the pair is clearly wrong. Here is a contemporaneous source: The Art Journal, vol.14 (1875), p.342 which lists the prices realised at the Samuel Mendel sale in 1875: Jephthah £3,990 [which is 3,800 guineas] and Chill October £3,255 [which is 3,100 guineas]. So that is 6,900 guineas for the pair. [original research alert: Did Armstrong leave off a digit? Perhaps a typo or thinko? Or perhaps he did not want to admit the real price? Which is odd as it is a matter of public record. Was there a transcription error? Was it misread by Heald? A printing error?] Is the original published anywhere so we can check?

Chill October was acclaimed at the time; Van Gogh saw the painting at the sale and admired it: he mentions it in at least five letters. There is an interesting article in The Magazine of Art, vol.14 (1891) which it seems describes the Armstrong collection, calling Chill October "the most famous landscape in the collection ... the first and noblest of [Millais'] great landscapes. It would be superfluous to decribe in detail a picture which is known intimately by every British lover of art"(!). Then, maybe. Now?

The history of the prices is fascinating. Mendel seems to have paid £1,000 for Chill October at the RA summer exhibution in 1871, then sold to Armstrong in 1875 for £3,255 [3,100 guineas], who sold in 1910 for £5,040 [4,800 guineas] to a family that kept it through three generations until it was bought by Lloyd Webber in 1991 for £370,000.

The value of Jephthah just crashed. Mendel paid 4,200 [4,000 guineas] in 1867, then sold to Armstrong in 1875 for £3,990 [3,800 guineas], and Armstrong sold in 1910 for £1,260 (1,200 guineas). It was bought by Charles Fairfax Murray, and sold on his death in 1917 to the notorious dealer William Walker Sampson for just £1,050 [1000 guineas]. (He was a poor Tyneside lad made good, who said he saw the painting as a boy years before and vowed to buy it, but [scandal alert: he was also accused of orchestrating a ring of dealers who would collude to buy paintings at auction for a song and sell them on at a profit].) What happens next is unclear, but one sources says it was left to the National Gallery of Wales by "Miss Isadora Stone" in 1964 (the National Museum of Wales says it was "Isadore Stone", which is an unusual name; possibly the father of the choreographer Paddy Stone.)  That somewhat at odds with the 1961 book mentioned above, that says it was sold to the Nat Mus Wales in 1917! Answers on a postcard as to what Jephthah might fetch now.

Tastes change, but the works are both notable so I invite someone to write the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.170 (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I misread Reitlinger's rather condensed format here, & the "National Museum of Wales" at 1917 was meant only as a note on the present location rather than the buyer then. Apologies! Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm delighted you found the article, and particularly the section on Millais's paintings, of interest. And thank you very much for the helpful information. You're surely right that both paintings merit articles. Many editors, including some who have contributed here, have written splendid articles on individual works of art. Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele and The Third of May 1808 are two examples. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that a comment from one editor can spark the interest of another and some productive, collaborative work can result. This was actually the exact genesis of the development of the Cragside article. So it may well be that another editor takes up your suggestion. Have you thought of registering, by the way? There are considerable benefits. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine, and thanks. Just a slight note of caution, the middle of an FAC is a risky time to be making alterations, unless in response to FAC comments. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, John. I think we've got to a good place, and one that is informative, and helpful to the reader. I think it is pretty clear that Heald's "900" must be a misprint, but we can leave people to work that out for themselves. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

TFAR
Today's featured article/requests/Cragside --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Google Books links
What is the reason for hot linking Google Books in the sources + using the ISBN mechanism? GB is a commercial book seller, the idea is to not favor one seller over another (eg. Amazon.com) and instead use the ISBN mechanism to give readers a choice. -- Green  C  21:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your interest. The reason for linking the source titles is the reason for the article, to give readers information. Google Books does this, as does Worldcat, which is also used. Amazon, which is also linked, does so as well, although its commercial intent is more prevalent and the information it gives is less helpful. Of the thirty-odd books cited, I think only three are available through Google, and Amazon is listed, by Google Books, as the first option for buying those that aren't, so I doubt it is impacting on readers' book buying choices in the way you suggest. When you say "the idea is to not favor one seller over another", can you point me towards the policy this idea derives from? It would be interesting to research it a little more. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's probably a more detailed guideline somewhere, but the relevant policy snippet is WP:ELNO, points 4 and 15. Personally I don't see a problem with Google Books links where Google has a preview of the relevant section, but otherwise I don't think they add a lot (that's what the linked ISBNs are for). HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 09:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They don't link to a preview it's a general link to the "About this book" page. They aren't citation links, but for a bibliography. The ISBN mechanism was designed for this. If we must link to a book record it should be open source or non-profit such as Open Library, but the ISBN takes care of this also. -- Green  C  04:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree it is more helpful where they link to snippets, but I think it still helps the reader even where they don't. It's a quick way for readers to confirm the sources, and find more information about them, rather more easily, in my view, then the ISBN route. Having looked at WP:ELNO, I don't think it falls foul of it and, having used the approach in other FACs, it's never been raised as an issue. And the Cite book template specifically has a URL slot. I appreciate there are differing views so perhaps, like infoboxes or referencing styles, it's a preference issue. KJP1 (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Squirrel
"The estate provides sanctuary for some of the last red squirrels remaining in Britain.[43]" Yet there are 120,000 in Scotland. What's going on? --John (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - Sorry for the delay in getting back, have been away. The summary was certainly accurate to the source, which reads as follows: "It is also home to some of the last red squirrels in Britain." I think the point Binney is making is that, compared to their early C.20 position, they have seen a calamitous decline, see . 3.5M to 120-160K is pretty catastrophic. And of these remaining 150,000 odd, the vast majority are in the North, including Cragside, and predominantly Scotland. I've tried a rewording, which I hope works. KJP1 (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Image sizes
I wonder what others think of the thumb sizes? Most Featured articles use thumb for horizontal, thumb|upright for vertical ones, and thumb|upright=x to emphasise one or two important or difficult to read ones. By emphasising all, you just emphasise none. --John (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - Apologies, as above. To me, the issue's not about seeking to emphasise images, one over another, but what is helpful to the reader. For architecture articles, the thumb size can often be just too small to be of much use, in that it doesn't show sufficient detail. Take the image of the Library. As a thumb, it's just too small to give any proper indication of the room's quality, such that it's described as Shaw's best, and one of the best, Victorian rooms. I appreciate others may have a different preference. KJP1 (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's a feature of thumbnail images. Users know they can click on it to see the main image. --John (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS - "first scientist"?
Just to note what I wrote at WP:ERRORS: ''"William Armstrong, 1st Baron Armstrong ... raised to the peerage in 1887 ... was the first engineer or scientist ever to join the House of Lords." Ever? Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "scientist" or "engineer". Wasn't Francis Bacon already a scientist when he was ennobled in 1618? (There are some sources that say Lord Kelvin was the first scientist to be ennobled, in 1892, which is again arguable, if you ignore Armstrong and Bacon and say Lord Rosse who "joined the House of Lords" when he inherited his title in 1841...) Stronger ground for "first engineer". I can't think of an earlier one.''
 * Hi, and thanks for the feedback. The claim is certainly made by Armstrong's most recent biographer, (Heald, 2012), and the article reflects this, with a citation, online version here (https://williamarmstrong.info/about-the-man/), in the body of the text, as is the general convention. His peerage certainly predates that of Kelvin. It's perhaps also important to distinguish between those that were made peers, as a mark of distinction, such as Armstrong and Kelvin, and those that inherited their peerages, such as Rosse, or the much earlier, Edward Somerset, 2nd Marquess of Worcester. While I appreciate you could debate this, and suggest alternatives, I think that might shade into original research. I'm confident it reflects what the published, secondary sources say. KJP1 (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I thought you might want to distinguish those who inherited titles from those who were ennobled in their own right. That would knock out Rosse and a number of others, but not Bacon and Kelvin. The article here is more careful to say "first engineer or scientist to be ennobled", but my eye was caught by the main page blurb which uses (used) a looser paraphrase "first engineer or scientist ever to join the House of Lords". I'd argue that Rosse was a scientist when he "joined" the House of Lords by inheriting his title.

In relation to Kelvin, yes he was a few years later, but unlike Armstrong he was also primarily an academic research scientist. Here is a biography which clearly says that Kelvin was the first.. Many other sources make a similar claim: here is another example.. You mention Heald. So we have we competing sources for that claim, as between Armstrong and Kelvin. Why are we stating so plainly that Armstrong was first, without qualification? Are there other sources in favour of Armstrong?

In relation to Bacon, he too was a scientist (as well as other things) and he was ennobled nearly 300 years earlier. Does Heald give any reason for dismissing Bacon as the first scientist to be ennobled?

As I said, I can't find anyone making a better claim than Armstrong to be the first engineer to be ennobled (and there are some sources that say that without adding "or scientist"). I'm sure we can think of reasons why that is the case: engineering not being an organised profession before the late 18th century, social status, lack of a clear candidate, etc. I also suspect Armstrong was not ennobled primarily on account of his engineering or scientific expertise, but rather because he was fantastically successful at selling his machines, and he became very rich and powerful as a result. He was primarily an industrialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.153 (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In relation to Kelvin, I do think it is pretty clear. Unless one wants to contend that Armstrong wasn't a scientist at all, which is hard although I absolutely agree he was a very practical scientist and his fame, wealth and peerage, almost certainly flowed from his success as an industrial plutocrat, his elevation predated Kelvin's by several years. Perhaps here, a caveat and a footnote is the answer, rather than removing Armstrong's claim to be a scientist. Something like: (efn:Others have claimed this distinction for Lord Kelvin .......). In relation to Bacon, the problem, to me, remains OR. If we have a source that makes such a claim for him, fine, but I've not got one. Very happy to look at a footnote + caveat later, but I am afraid real life is now going to intrude for a few hours. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

OK so you want a source that explicitly says "Francis Bacon was the first scientist to be ennobled"? It is not sufficient to point to the plain fact that Bacon was a scientist, and he was ennobled in 1618? (Would you settle for one saying he was the first to be knighted, in 1603, as that came a few years before the barony and the viscountcy? Interestingly enough, that claim is also made for Isaac Newton, who like Kelvin was arguably more of an academic scientist than Bacon or Armstrong, given Bacon's activities as a lawyer and politician). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.153 (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So, normal service resumed, how about a footnote to the lead which reads something like:
 * {efn|Others have claimed the honour of the first scientific peerage for the physicist Lord Kelvin whose barony, awarded in 1892, was granted entirely in recognition of his scientific achievements.{sfn|Smith|Norton Wise|1989|p=801}{sfn|Schobert|2014|p=154}}
 * As for Bacon, and Newton, I'm still struggling to see how this is covered without it being original research. If we write, in our own voice, something like, "The claim of Francis Bacon should also be considered", how is that not OR? As for Newton, that he wasn't ennobled says something about the social standing of scientists in the 17th/18th centuries, but that he wasn't means he certainly can't beat Armstrong. Thoughts? KJP1 (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

King of Siam, Prince of Wales, and Easter eggs
The article mentions the Crown Prince of Afghanistan, the Shah of Persia and the King of Siam, without specifying which. Not sure about the Prince and the Shah, since no dates are given, but the King of Siam in 1897 was Chulalongkorn. On the other hand, the article makes first mention of the Prince and Princess of Wales without identifying them in the text but using piped links to Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark, a practice discouraged by WP:EGG. They are identified seven paragraphs later in the Architecture and description section; perhaps this should be moved to the first occurrence? As for mentioning Chulalongkorn, I'd understand if someone thinks it might be a WP:SYNTH issue, but I think it falls within the spirit of WP:CALC (and there's even a portrait of him hanging in the mansion so there shouldn't be any doubt). --Paul_012 (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * From the article on Chulalongkorn, he seems to have toured Europe twice, in 1897 and 1907, so that fits (see the list of regents in the infobox, for example). The Shah of Persia from 1848 to 1896 was Naser al-Din Shah Qajar and then until 1907 was Mozaffar ad-Din Shah Qajar.  It seems the Crown Prince of Afghanistan (redlink - see List of heads of state of Afghanistan) from 1880 to 1901 was Habibullah Khan.  Hope that helps.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.153 (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Very helpful and many thanks to you both. The problem is that many sources do talk of "the King of Siam" etc., without being specific. Where they have been, we've tried to link to the actual personage. Where they're not, we've gone for the dynasty, etc. Armstrong's longevity doesn't help either - in that he was using Cragside as a lure for his business for over 30 years. We'd be delighted if further clarification were possible, including for the P & POW. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Chulalongkorn (aka Rama V) was the King of Siam from 1868 to 1910, so it is difficult to see which other King of Siam could have been entertained by Armstrong at Cragside. The King is known to have purchased 6 inch Armstrong disappearing guns for Chulachomklao Fort, for example (used with mixed results at the 1893 Paknam incident). But if you need to see it inscribed on macerated tree pulp:  mentions him and Nasir-ud-Din from Persia (that is, Naser al-Din Shah Qajar who it seems visited Europe in 1873, 1878 and 1889).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.153 (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks again - most helpful. Our problem with the Afghan Crown Prince is that there appear to be at least five possible candidates, working from their dates. The role was obviously not a stable one! We'll keep looking to see if any of the sources are more specific, but I doubt it. KJP1 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if it was the King of Siam in 1897, or the Shah of Persia in 1889, or the Crown Prince of Afghanistan in 1895, we know who they all were.


 * However, it seems it was not in fact the Crown Prince who visited, but another son of the emir: Nasrullah Khan.  The Emir had intended to visit England himself, but was ill so could not travel, and sent Nasrullah Khan instead.  Our article on him cites that fact that he visited Cragside to The Times on 17 June 1895; it is issue 34605, p.9.


 * Incidentally, The Times also confirms that the Shah of Persia visited Cragside on 23 July 1889, and Li Hung Chang (sic) on 19 August 1896, and the King of Siam on 13 August 1897. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.153 (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks again - do feel free to directly bluelink to the individual if you're satisfied from the source. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of this can be confirmed from the Court Circular in The Times, so the sourcing is pretty unimpeachable. (Must have misread the date in the footnote in the article on Nasrallah Khan, it was correct.) As requested, I'll add it in.

TFA
Our sincere thanks to those editors who kept back the vandals during the article's front page outing. And for the copy edits and corrections. There have also been some very helpful substantive suggestions, regarding the identification of Armstrong's foreign visitors, and the validity of his claim to be the first scientist to receive a peerage. In relation to the latter, I'll put in a footnote, as discussed above, which I hope addresses the concern. KJP1 (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add my warmest thanks for the support and for the improvements to the article. And if you haven't been there and you get the opportunity, please go and see it! It really is an extraordinary place. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Almost 38k visited the virtual version, - not bad ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow! That's a lot of virtual tea and cakes! :) Thanks Gerda DBaK (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * More to come! For some reason, the mere mentioning below today's TFA will invite estimated 5k more, tomorrow 3k, and some more the last day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - Gerda, it's good that people took an interest, and many thanks for your help at Peer review and FAC. KJP1 (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ... thanks for someone giving virtual tea to 7k the second day, 3k and 2k the following two days: nice result, even better than predicted! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Turkish bath
The hot room in the private Turkish bath at Cragside, Rothbury
 * Not to prolong the debate, but for information, this source, by Malcolm Shifrin, describes it as a "Turkish bath suite" - singular, with "suite" and without the "Victorian" qualifier. KJP1 (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Victorian Web - this has a, disappointingly brief, mention. KJP1 (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming the bath is accessible on a tour of the house? Flickr, etc. have images but Commons/Geograph appear not to? KJP1 (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't remember it being on display when I went a couple of years ago, but it might have been (or some of the suite). Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

HE comments
 * Here Mr Shifrin describes it as only one of two still open to view. Maddeningly, he doesn't say where the other is. That might make a good footnote. KJP1 (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)