Talk:Tyntesfield/Archives/2014

What else is needed to get this article to meet the Good article criteria
As the flurry of edits to this article earlier in the year seems to stopped, what else do people think is needed for the article to meet the Good article criteria before a nomination?&mdash; Rod talk 13:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Does the infobox not seem just a trifle too long? Other that that, I would have thought it could be submitted to the process.  Giano   16:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We could use a collapsed infobox (as pioneered on Montacute House), otherwise we could remove some of the content, but might need a discussion of what goes: General info, Technical details or Design and construction?&mdash; Rod talk 16:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well as you know, I'm a great fan of the collapsed box, but as this not a page with which I'm greatly involved, I'm not that bothered, but if it's going to remain permanently on view, half that information need to be condensed of removed. I was just looking again at the page as a whole; it really wants half these short, stubby sections amalgamating, but as I recall, earlier in the year, trying to remove some of the trivia and verbosity was not universally welcomed. That's why I think that you should let it go to GA and see what the response is. I dare say that Mr Corbett will have a view on this.   Giano   16:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's rather awkwardly written in places, but given the history with Amanda I won't be the one proposing any significant changes. Better to let the GA reviewer sort it out I think. I agree with you about the infobox, bloody ridiculous. Eric   Corbett  19:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have "collapsed" the infobox, and enlarged the size of the lead image (otherwise there is a lot of white space next to the contents list). I will nominate it for GA and see what comments are given by the reviewer. As ever, help with dealing with specific architectural or grammar issues will be appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 09:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is brilliant. I really like the nice big image too - people can really see what's going on there - which is the whole point of the exercise.  Giano   10:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Input please
It seems like this article has a cooperative effort among several users who have moved the article towards GA readiness. I have 3 questions and it would be great to get your input:


 * 1) Should the history and owners sections be merged? It seems like it would flow a bit better if it they were merged.
 * 2) There's some detail that I generally put in notes (i.e., interesting but does not necessarily further the subject's story.) One example is the "The initial conservation work focused around..." bullets. It would seem that could be rolled up into a summary and the number of feet / miles comments put in a note. Another potential are the details in the National Trust purchase section. It would seem that potential buyer info, etc. would be better in notes.
 * 3) There is information in the article about the badger problem, but the source is a blog. I am assuming, if a reliable, secondary source is not found that this is not considered notable information.

Are there any comments or thoughts about this?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 18:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It was once a cooperative effort, but not now really. Eric   Corbett  18:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood, I thought that was resolved by collapsing the infobox. Any input on the items I brought up?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not from me. Eric   Corbett  18:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have attempted to address the citation needed, better source and deadlink issues. If you spot any others please let me know. I have changed a couple of bullet lists to prose. I'm not sure about trying to merge the history and owners sections as some of the development of the building does not clearly link with the particular periods of ownership. The members of the Gibbs family are obviously important to the history and development of the house and I will attempt this if others think it would be useful. I have removed the Badger section as I could not find RS sources for this.&mdash; Rod talk 20:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding merging the owner and history information - It seems to me that most of what is history, except the background, relates to William Gibbs, with a bit of spill-over, like the chapel that was finished in 1877, 2 years after his death. I think that this actually would not be a difficult merge, retaining the family history as well as retaining the bulk of the sections for the "Purchase," "Redevelopment" and "Chapel" under William... and then have some updates to Antony's section. If there's not consensus, then we can drop this one.
 * Any opinions about paring down some of the detail in the National Trust section and/or putting some of the detail in notes? This I think is pretty much a style/format approach and with no comments, I would conclude that I'm the only one for it and will drop it.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Potential close paraphrasing and copyright violations
Here are some examples of close paraphrasing and potential copyright violations. If some of them are too picky, perhaps a common phrase, etc., if you wouldn't mind commenting, that would be great!

Resources are: WP:Close paraphrasing; Paraphrase: Write it in Your Own Words, Purdue University and How to Paraphrase Without Plagiarizing, Colorado State University.

Based on the number of items found from 2 sources, the next step seems to be for a thorough review of the source content against the article content. I totally understand how tricky it is when phrases stay in our mind and we reuse them without noticing.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 20:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of copyvios/close paraphrasing was introduced in the edits between 31 March 2013 and and 4 April 2013. We have removed a lot of these but may easily have missed some. I will attempt to rephrase some of these but may take a day or two.&mdash; Rod talk 20:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, cool!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at rewording some of these. A couple where it is only a few words eg "by the national trust in June 2002" I don't think are an issue. One long phrase "as the necessary culmination of the tyntesfield project giving a character to the household almost resembling that of Little Gidding" I think is probably a direct quote (part is in speech marks) and therefore I don't want to tamper with it, however I have not (yet) got access to M. Hall, ‘Tyntesfield, Somerset’, Country Life (25 April 2002), 114–17 to check this.&mdash; Rod talk 20:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been unable to get that edition of Country Life, therefore I have reworded the part outside the speech marks.&mdash; Rod talk 10:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, great! As I mentioned in the GA review, there were so many instances of closeparaphrasing, that a good review of all the content to sources is in order. Have you been able to do research on the other sources of the article to ensure that there are no copyright / close paraphrasing issues?


 * If it would help, I can run duplication detection reports for each straight web page (i.e., not PDF files or books).-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 00:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Or, if you'd like to run them yourself, the link is: https://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/ -- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 00:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with that tool so if you'd be kind enough to run it & put any you are worried about here I will then address them. Thanks&mdash; Rod talk 20:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate detection reports
Here are the duplicate detection reports for the content that came from websites for citations 1-18. Two things: 1) it doesn't include the books or pdfs between 1-18 that need to be looked at and 2) the duplication error report doesn't filter out names, like the book title "the buildings of england north somerset and bristol", so of course, those can be ignored:
 * Building conservation ✅
 * National Trust ✅
 * Oxford DNB ✅
 * The Guardian ✅
 * Pusey House ✅
 * Minerva Conservation ✅
 * Victorian web
 * Images of England ✅

This should be a good start.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 10:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for obtaining these reports. I've been through and done some rewording, although many of the matches identified were titles etc or direct quotes already in speech marks and attributed.&mdash; Rod talk 11:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I've learnt how the tool works I've been through and done all the other web sites, resolving the few minor problems identified. I have also looked in the books I have for problems and not found any.&mdash; Rod talk 12:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. You might want to recheck the Victorian web link - especially the 7 and 8 word duplicates. So, you're saying you've also checked all the web links after #18 and the books?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 15:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had another go but there are only so many ways you can say "seven children and eighteen grandchildren". Most of the phrase " ironwork by hart son peard and co" is the company name - as is "glass by powell and wooldridge". "supporters of the oxford movement" - if the Oxford Movement is considered as the "proper name" I don't think this is a problem, do you?&mdash; Rod talk 15:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think that's fine. I've got to take a break for several hours, but I'll come back and spot check of few of the web links after citation 18 and some of the books.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 16:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I check more web sites and I think we're fine there. Yeah!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 22:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You could always say something like "Children had he, seven, who themselves had eighteen children between them." Eric   Corbett  22:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, that there are alternatives. To fit the sentence and following sentence, what do you think about "Seven children were born to William and Matilda, who had a total of eighteen children. All were devout Anglicans..." If you've got a better idea or like your first option, go for it! Thanks!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 23:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a good point at all. My intention, in which I clearly failed, was to take the piss by parodying the way in which Yoda might speak. Eric   Corbett  00:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I'm not too much in the mood to be insulted today. Constructive comments work, though, if that strikes your fancy at some point.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 00:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Believe me, if I'd meant to insult you it would have looked nothing like that. But now you come to mention it, I do think you're taking this issue rather too far. How many words have to be in the same order to meet your criteria for plagiarism/copyright? Eric   Corbett  01:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your question, it has less to do with the number of words than use of phrases in the original author's voice, per WP:Close paraphrasing, but I would say 8-11 words in a row and/or multiple exact phrases in the same sentence would seem to be a concern from the guidelines. User:Rodw resolved the issues and that part of the review is good to go now, so I'm confused. What is your concern and what is your desired outcome?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 03:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

PDFs and books
Since the website issues are cleared away, I came to spot check the books and pdfs. I see that you said that you spot-checked some books and didn't see any issues. I spotchecked one book, the only book I could see, and made a couple of adjustments based upon the content and since the book was written in 2005 not using language to suggest that renovation conditions are where they were then. That's all I could do with books, then.

Regarding pdfs, I started looking at Terry and Wright... and I'm finding inconsistencies between what was cited content and what is in the documents. I put citation needed tags for the information that I did not find in the pdfs.

The one place that was most confusing was the bit about John Tynte... it said he lived there in the 1800s, but there's nothing in Wright that says that. Instead it says on page 9 that he prefers his place in Chelvey Court and likely put no money into it. I see that Tynte's Place was downgraded to a farmhouse (last paragraph on page 9), but don't see a connection of that to John Tynte. Also, there was discussion in Wright about Vowles leasing the farmhouse, but that looks to have been done through Charles Kemys Tynte (p. 16).

Again, I think that there should be a good review of the sources to content.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 22:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Berkeley, Gloucestershire reference should have been Berkeley Square. I have removed this as not being particularly relevant to this article and added a reference for Halswell House being the family base. I have added a couple of references to the Tyntes living on the estate. I believe the claim re Chelvey Court becoming the principle residence is covered by Wright where is says "John Tynte preferring Chelvey Court as his residence" (top of page 7). I will continue looking through the other sources, but if you spot any other problems or claims which need citations I will do my best to provide them.&mdash; Rod talk 10:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

How is it pronounced?
To find that out was why I looked up the article... 87.114.168.4 (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This suggests TINTS-field, with which I'd agree. Someone familar with IPA (which I'm not) needs to make it official, though.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * BBC would seem to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)