Talk:Rivington Hall

Article review
Review sought on Rivington Hall article please 80.47.114.31 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, ok a few comments.
 * 1) use the correct infobox. Currently it's using the church infobox.  Perhaps Template:Infobox UK property would be better.
 * 2) what's the relevance of the family tree of Alice Asshaw, I don't see here mentioned in the text anywhere. If it's to show the lineage of some of the other people mentioned then consider changing the caption of the image.
 * 3) Style wise too many paragraphs start "In date" - some variations would be nicer to read.
 * 4) Use Template:Convert on all measurements for the benefit of those readers who aren't familiar with imperial units.
 * 5) There's a lot of history of the ownership but not much on the history of the building e.g. dates of construction and alteration. At the same time there are bits that don't seem to relate to the hall e.g. In 1765 Holt Leigh acquired lands in Rivington and Anglezarke from Baxter Roscow and Helen his wife, and Elizabeth Shaw, heirs to the Baron Willoughby of Parham.  How does this relate to the building?  If it was among the lands in Rivington acquired it needs to be more specific.
 * 6) Some of the references have quite unfathomable titles e.g. Pal. of Lanc. Feet of F. bdle. 70, no. 68. I'd make a guess that the first bit is either Palatinate of Lancaster/Lancashire or County Palatine of Lancashire but the second bit eludes me entirely
 * There's the start of a good article here because someone really knows about it but at the moment it's not quite coming over right. Leave a message on my talk page if you want to discuss or need any help. NtheP (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above, this article should be about the Hall, not the people who lived in it. As it has been unresolved for months perhaps the surplus information can be deleted.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Rivington Hall Barn
I have moved Rivington Hall Barn out of the article to one of its own. Still waiting for the occupants to leave.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Salmon
I don't think the biography of Mr Salmon is appropriate here, dshould it be removed with just the relevant bits mentioned?--J3Mrs (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

1544
I think the 1544 lease of Rivington Hall is appropriate in the article, the sentence read as follows: In 1544 Richard Pilkington signed a lease of Rivington Hall to third parties for the remainder of his life. This was included under occupants and in the lease, being an indenture signed and sealed states who was benefit of it, this is also a strong indication that the Pilkingtons were not in occupation of the hall after 1544. This lease also had other bindings, including the inheritance of the estate so it is one of great importance when looking at the history of the hall and estate. --PL.-Snr (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As the Pilkingtons never lived in the present hall I think it can be discounted, the early Pilkingtons provide background information not legal commentary.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There remains the foundations of the old Hall, the current hall was built on top. The 1544 indenture of lease is relevant to the first build. Some of the rear of the building predates the Breeres. --PL.-Snr (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is about the building not about leases. The lease is not necessary. This is an encyclopedia not a legal document. I really don't understand why anyone would think this appropriate.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Trivia
Please keep the article focussed on the hall, not genealogy.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)