Talk:Tracy Park

Cash for schoolmasters
An 1842 church report here shows Colonel Davy, then residing at Tracy Park, paying 3 shillings a year each to two schoolmasters, but also says it doesn't know what the reason for it is. (Edit conflicted with Giano - I agree that saying "masonic looking" is nothing to do with freemasonry and possibly one author's artistic licence). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Question
In the section "Estate and its surroundings", second paragraph, the sentence "These piers clearly reflect the usual design of the large buttresses on the south face... " should that be "unusual design"? --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! Giano    (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Description of the house
I have just added information on its later history and the house in the 17th and 18th centuries. I feel that it is more sensible to describe the estate as it is now and then explain how it came to be, so I have moved the "Estate and its surroundings" section above the history section. Of course, if that's not right, then feel free to change. What we are lacking, however, is a description in one place of the house as it stands now. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

Charles Raikes Davy
It seems that Gloucestershire and Herefordshire Mark Provincial Grand Lodge (1449) have a portrait of Charles Raikes Davy; I've written and asked them to consider uploading a copy of it. That would be great, as he is probably the single most important person connected to Tracy Park - so fingers crossed. Giano   (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Later history/20th century
I notice that a lot of editing has been going on today - the article is looking good. I can't help but wonder why the 20th century section is tagged at the end of the article. Is it not part of the history? The title was changed earlier from "Later history", but that is essentially what it is. Isn't later history exactly that - history?

Secondly, the article opens with the history section, which seems a little odd to me. Essentially, this section is about how the estate has changed and how it has come to be what it is today. So, would it not seem more sensible to tell the reader what it (i.e Tracy Park) is before telling them how it came to be that? Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC).
 * I don't care what it is called, but it needs to be at the end of the article to serve as a conclusion, bringing the page up to date. Someone moved it today to the history section; presumably thinking all history sections need to be together - they do not. That's why I clanged it's title. Opening with the history section serves to set the scene and introduce the characters that are to be spoken of later in the page, and hopefully avoid too much repetition and confusion. Giano    (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC):::PS: The lead is ridiculously long and detailed, most of that is explained (or should be in the body of the text); the descriptive architecture seems to be scattered about all over. Quite frankly it's a mess.  Giano    (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a mess, but how to clean it up given the ongoing resistance? Eric   Corbett  18:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do just want to clarify here that I haven't been editing this page at all today and I don't intend to move anything about, I just thought that these points were worth discussing and airing. Back to the original points I made, I don't care what it's called either, but my belief is that it is disjointed having it where it is. The description needs to be there too. If you look at any GA article on, say, a church, it will have a history section and an architecture/description section. I get what you are saying about the history section, it does serve that purpose. I think the important part is to separate the architectural info from the history section and give the description section a good once over. It's better to start with too much and trim back, but we need to consolidate it all first. The freemasonry stuff is interesting, but I do question whether is leaning towards either POV or OR in places. The Hagarty Webber Partnership entry about Solomon's Temple is a blog, and I am not sure how reliable the Masonic Dictionary and Masonic Lodge of Education sites are as well. It's fine saying that something resembles a masonic symbol, but can we really say that those two gate piers (or whatever they are) possibly represent Boaz and Jachin? To whom do the two buttresses seem to serve no structural purpose? Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC).
 * When you find yourself in a hole the best advice is to stop digging. Eric   Corbett  20:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a bit confused by that comment, I am not sure that I am in a hole. I am merely asking some questions and offering my views on how things could be improved. I am not accusing anyone of anything or criticising anyone. I am just trying to be constructive. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC).
 * No one could imagine that the decorative 'Gothic' buttresses were propping up the wall.--Wetman (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Wetman I agree. Sadly, even Pevsner's heirs declared this poor architecture only gave it a hurried, cursory glance and write-up; thus missing two important things: one a real buttress and some fenestration indicating 16th/17th century original work and, I suspect, some 1st generation English Palladianism too. It is clear to anyone with any practical knowledge of building and structural engineering that those pilasters (best word I can think of for them) are not buttresses - they are a decorative feature. They are not high enough to be buttresses; they do not protrude enough and they are in the wrong place for a strain to be occurring - especially just 20 years after the facade was originally completed. They are clearly meant to complement the portico - which they do quite well. There is some quite fascinating interesting architecture here, and I fail to see why it can't be mentioned because some people never bothered (or were deterred) from looking for it. Giano    (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I agree that it's interesting and I want to see this article be the best it can be. I can see that those "buttresses" aren't structurally significant. But, my query was over the comment stating that they "seem to serve no structural purpose". The summary for WP:OR states that "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source", which I find is contradicted by your statement above that "I fail to see why it can't be mentioned because some people never bothered (or were deterred) from looking for it", where by "some people" you are referring to those who have carried all the available architectural studies of the building. I get that the article doesn't state that they do not serve a structural purpose; it states they seem to serve no such function. But, as I said in my original question, this still makes me ask to whom does it seem they serve no such purpose. However, I can see that people support you on this one, and I am no expert: I have only been here for 10 months now, so what do I know? You haven't responded about the reliability of the other sources, but I guess that will come up at GA should you take it there and the reviewer thinks they are questionable. Anyway, I am going to walk away from this now. Hopefully, the sources I found earlier and edits I made to the article have helped to make it better. Good luck with your work on improving it, it's amazing how far it has come already. Best wishes, &mdash;Noswall59 (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC).

Architect
In hopes of identifying an architect I checked Colvin: no listing for Tracy Park.--Wetman (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Wetman, the mid-19th century embellishing has been sort of attributed to John Elkington Gill, but that seems to be based on no more than the fact that he worked on the nearby parish church. My guess is that looking at the architecture, Raikes Davy designed it himself and probably got a surveyor or perhaps even Gill to draw up some working plans. I'll keep searching. If there's any clues, they are in that strange tower, which is why I likened it to the work of Alexander Thomson, but that's more for explaining to readers the ideas and architectural concepts that were floating about at that time, rather than suggesting he designed it - it's not accomplished enough for him anyway. Giano    (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Helen Arthington-Davy
It seems that Helen Artington-Davy who sold Tracy Park and later the family heirlooms, was actually a Mrs Hodges (of Danestone House, Aberdeen). She renounced the name Hodges in favour of Arthington-Davy for herself and her sons Tom Jeffrey and William Henry Hodges in an announcement in The Times (London, England), Thursday, Sep 22, 1927; pg. 24; Issue 44693.