User talk:Chivalrick1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Doc Quintana (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Chiswick House
"request has been made"

Please review the whole article for its importance and quality as Chiswick House and Gardens are of world importance and the Wikipedia entry on these should reflect both (Chivalrick1 (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)).
 * I have made a few coments for you to consider, you really need to digest the very long and dull Manual of Style or better still (and far easier) take a look at few other pages on a similar subject and then conform to those principles. Belton House is one, but there are many others such as Queluz Palace etc, which are featured articles, so a pretty good intimation of what is required. The Manual of Style is not cast in stone, but some people like to quote it all the time, so it pays to have a basic understanding. Please ask if you want any more advice. Giacomo Returned 08:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just post any comments you have on the above subject at WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/Chiswick House, however, a peer review won't make the article graded A - you have to go to Featured article candidates for that, but a peer review will certainly iron out preliminary and obvious problems before going there. Altenatively, you can just bypass the review and go straight there - all roads lead to Rome - eventually. Giacomo Returned 12:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Chiswick House. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please just read above, before leaving further posts like this! No wonder wikipedia has a dearth of educated knowledgable editors! Giacomo Returned 16:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's looking good. What about dumping the filming and trivia section into a page of it's own - expanding the lead/intro to summarise the whole article. Write a suitable conclusion - what is going on there today, future plans etc and then taking stock - the FAC reviewers will have their own ideas too (not always the most useful, but a necessary evil) - then, I will ask a couple of Wikipedian friends to take a look - so it's more than halfway there before going to FAC. Giacomo Returned 18:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are now quite a few comments from others at WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/Chiswick House that you might like to consider, plus a lot of work has been done on the page itself to show you the style and various formats required. Regards. Giacomo Returned 07:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It does look good, very nice work. It does though require major editing if it is to pass GA and even move towards FA quality. The biggest problem as I pointed out is sourcing. If you can replace those notes with proper citations. It will also need a full copy edit and to be made more even, for instance it needs a few paragraphs on archaeology and english heritage/listing building stuff. What I'll do it wait until you've added your sources to those I've required and then I'll continue to go through the article doing my own research and broadening the amount of sources like I've done with the history to make it a comprehensive article and compliment and fill in gaps with what you've already written. "Comprehensive" I understand is not necessary for a Good Article, but for a featured article which of course you are looking for it will certainly need to be. I understand you have an extensive number of books on this but if you want some tips for quickly finding other sources and drawing up citations from the vast information source that is google books at the touch of the button feel free to give me a bell.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your photos
I was looking over your photos last night for the peer review, I came across this photo. I was wondering if you had an issue with me nominating it for featured picture cheers --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  23:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I have no issue with you putting forward my photograph for the 'featured photo'- in fact that would be quite a compliment!

Give me time to make the ammendments to the Chiswick article- I have a lot going on at the moment including a full time job, a one year old baby and my wedding in July that I am trying to arrange. I will edit the article, it just might take a little longer than usual

Regards,

Ricky

(Chivalrick1 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

Punctuation before references at Chiswick House
Hi, please note that the house style is "punct before ref", i.e. sentences end with a dot, immediately followed by a reference, so they look like this: ....... end.[1] At the moment your sentences are ending like this: ........end [1] which I keep having to fix! All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)