Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:07, 27 September 2009.

Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford

 * Nominator(s): BencherliteTalk 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because those who have been kind enough to read or review the article have said that it's nearly there. Thanks to Malleus Fatuorum for extensive prose work above and beyond the call (any remaining infelicitations are my fault, of course), Joopercoopers for creating the fantastic plan used as the (update) a lead image, Giano for looking at the architectural details discussion, Rodw for his extensive comments on the article, Pyrotec for the GA review, Ruhrfisch for the peer review, Jonathan A Jones for visiting the college to take some requested photos and various Flickr contributors who relicensed some images for Commons when I asked. I'd like to thank my agent, my wife, my fellow actors... I've had a go at improving my earlier ALT text (and added it to Jesus College, Oxford, but that change hasn't come through in the alt text tool yet - have I done it right? ) Further help on this, and anything else, is welcome. If nothing else, readers of the article will know far more than they ever realised that they didn't want to know about the physical appearance of a college that produced such distinguished alumni as Lawrence of Arabia, Harold Wilson and me (shome mistake, shurely?) BencherliteTalk 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the references is generating a "Invalid type (application/unknown) for .pdf file" error in the external links checker, but the file opens without difficulty for me.
 * Full disclosure - notified Giano of this FAC as he requested me to do. BencherliteTalk 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment based on quick read. Clearly a very full account of the buildings, but rather short on architectural description or comment. I found several pithy comments in: John Julius Norwich, The Architecture of Southern England, Macmillan, London, 1985, ISBN 03333220374, some of which could usefully be worked in, and no doubt there are other sources. More talk of/links to Crenellation, Dutch gables, mullions and hood moulds etc is needed.  A description of how Oxbridge staircases work is needed I think, and details of how many there are, and how many sets of rooms etc are in the various parts.  The only thing I could find is a brief description at Mob Quad - perhaps a section should be added at quadrangle.  The first photo of the buildings comes rather late, & the photos, as opposed to the prints,  generally are of sections rather than panoramas. If it was me I'd add a gallery, or a couple of 4 pic mini-galleries in the text - but then I always do that.  There's room in the lead section for a nice photo before the plan, which is very useful but not the most inviting lead pic. There are several photos already on Commons which would be useful if added. Where the dates of construction &/or rebuilding are clear these should be added to photo captions. The college seems a prime example of Gothic survival (I'm fairly sure I've seen it - the chapel in particular? - mentioned as such, but who knows where), but I don't think this is linked. There's no caption on the photo of the doorway or whatever in the "principal's lodging" section. I'll give it a fuller read-through later.  Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Bencherlite, you cheeky blighter, I told you to tell me when this was going through. So, as revenge, please find the start (and now the end) of some comments on the talk page... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both for your comments, to which I'll respond in detail / act upon next week, after a weekend of family duties! I've ordered the JJN book from abebooks.co.uk, so should have that early next week as well. BencherliteTalk 07:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied to, and attempted to implement the majority of, TRM's comments on the talk page. Hoping that JJN book arrives tomorrow (a bargain £5.84 + postage), or I'll miss it for a week on my travels.  I'll then try to tackle Johnbod's comments, with the caveat that I have little knowledge of architecture, and barely know the difference between a mullion and a Skullion, so may need some hand-holding on terminology. I've left another request with someone on Flickr for a wider-shot image, so fingers crossed.  BencherliteTalk 23:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know anything you need. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * SupportIt's a great page and I will suport it, but why are the images of the buildings so tiny and lost in great blocks of text? They need to be bigger and bolder - this page is about them - so let's see them properly. I'm not sure that the lead image should be the plan (brilliant as it is) perhaps a nice pretty picture of an historic building would be more enticing to the general reader. Apart from these (probably non-actionable) comments I support the page. Giano (talk)
 * Thank you. The images are all at default sizes, apart from the plan which a reader suggested was too small at default size.  My understanding is that using default sizes is the preferred method at FAC. Johnbod has already suggested having another image in the lead, as well as the plan, so I'm sure that a prettier picture will be back there soon (after I get some sleep, perhaps...)  BencherliteTalk 23:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they don't have to be all default sizes, then can be as large as is relevant or necessary toi see them properly. This ridiculous small sizing of images is not mandatory nor should it be. Giano (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never thought the lead image should be a plan. The article seems to have so many better image candidates with which to draw the reader into the article, than that rather utilitarian plan of mine. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Update:
 * new additional lead image File:Second quad, Jesus College Oxford.jpg, which a kind Flickr user has just relicensed for me (a panoramic shot of the second quad). BencherliteTalk 12:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a short section on overall layout and staircases (haven't been able to find how many rooms in each staircase); used double image for a better comparison of the chapel interior pre- and post-refurbishment; used wide image for a panoramic shot of first quad; added dates to captions; added a bit about Gothic revival vs Gothic survival to the chapel section; added a few more architectural links. Am still awaiting JJN's book, as it didn't arrive at work before I headed off for a few days, and have ordered a couple of other books that might have snippets to use, based on snippet views at Google Books. Anything else for the moment? BencherliteTalk 15:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I raised a heap of concerns on the talkpage (so as not to clutter this FAC up) and Bencherlite has resolved them. It's a quality article, something which can justifiably be called Wikipedia's finest work.  Really good work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Further update: I have now got hold of the book recommended by Johnbod, and sprinkled John Julius Norwich's words of wisdom over the article. A few more images from Flickr have been relicensed upon my request, showing details (a staircase entrance, the chapel doorway, the shell-hood of the principal's lodgings), and I have added in some further architectural descriptions of elements of the buildings. I've asked Johnbod to pop back to update his views. In the meantime, would someone like to carry out an image review, please? (Hint: it should be easy, as most are verified Flickr photographs or snaps I took). Would anyone like to comment on the alt text? BencherliteTalk 17:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alt text looks good to me. Just one comment: I noticed for one image you use "A bird's-eye view of the college". Those unable to see the file don't know what the college looks like, so it would be good to describe the structure a bit (and switch "the" to "a"). – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was using "the college", and not giving a further description of the buildings, on the basis of WP:ALT, but on reflection, prompted by you, it's probably best to give some better description as the appearance changes over the years... Done. BencherliteTalk 20:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's all I can see at the moment. Nearly there, I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Second look comments.
 * Generally my points above are covered & article and pictures much better now. I've edited a bit, with links etc. Please change anything you don't like.
 * I think the lead has too much detail - much of para 2 should be summarized/spread around below. Para 1 is rather long?
 * Pevsner on 2nd quad. "Dutch gables have ogee sides and semi-circular pediments" would be better, but what did he actually say?
 * Introduce "Lascelles": "Rowley Lascelles, the 18th century antiquarian...". Also Arkell - at least give initials. I have improved Lascelles architectural vocab, maybe too much.  I don't think it's a battlement unless a sentry would feel comfortable behind it, but maybe he disagreed.
 * The text seems a bit congested at places. The sentence "As is often the case in Oxford colleges, the rooms in the older buildings are connected to the quadrangles by a series of staircases, rather than horizontally to each other by internal corridors." might be better as "As is often the case in Oxford colleges, the rooms in the older buildings are reached directly off a series of staircases, with no internal corridors running along the ranges." or something - just "reached from the quadranges" - it's "connected to" that jars.

Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your changes/links are fine.
 * Lead - gah! There was me trying to make sure it was sufficiently long! I've trimmed paras 1 and 2 slightly, but I don't think that there's much that can be left out particularly in para 2: I wanted to mention something about each of the main components (chapel, hall, lodgings, old library, etc) at least somewhere in the lead.
 * Pevsner's wording: "Inner quad is a uniform composition. [dates] Three storeys, regular fenestration by windows with round-arched lights, their hood-moulds forming a continuous frieze. Small top gablets with ogee sides and semi-circular tops (cf. University College)." I've used your wording for now, unless seeing this makes you think of making any alterations.
 * Reworded the second mention of Lascelles along your lines, though called him a 19th-century antiquarian (1771–1841) on the basis that his main working life was after 1800. His wording was in fact "But how dismal are these ogee battlements. They should be cut down into the form of an embrasured parapet, of the same pattern as that which crowns the pentagonal bay window of its inner court." I'm happy with your neat paraphrase. Similarly relinked WJ Arkell on second mention.
 * I like your turn of phrase re staircases, and have used that.
 * Diff of my changes. Is that a light at the end of the tunnel that I can see now?! BencherliteTalk 07:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought both Lascelles & Arkell were first mentions, indeed I thought I'd searched to check. Maybe full names/initials but not links needed on 2nd mention. I've tweaked Lascelles to "cut down into "battlements" (crenellations)...". Lead is better, imo. I've added a sentence on what classical building there was pre-Civil War, with a comment in the ref. It's an interesting question, of some importance for college architecture.    Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, based on my 2 sets of comments above. I think the article looks great now, & sets a new standard for our coverage of Oxbridge college buildings compared to any I've seen. Jesus must be ready to be a featured topic now?  Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lascelles and Arkell delinked on second mention. Thanks for your assistance in improving the article.  It's already a featured topic, but I need to get the main article back up to GA standards now after the recent GA sweeps... BencherliteTalk 14:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Support: beautiful article.
 * I've made a few tweaks in the lead. Will try to return soon to look at the rest.
 * Image sizes: the default of 180px is now widely regarded as a mistake (far too small). Editors are quite able (indeed I would expect them) to shape image size according to detail, composition, placement, etc. We couldn't have, for example, "Staircase VI Jesus College" more generously sized, could we? The detail is important. Tony   (talk)  15:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC) PS and the two adjacent chapel interiors: could they be "centered" and a bit larger, with no text wrapping? Yumm.  Tony   (talk)  15:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've increased the size of most of the landscape images to 300px (which helps makes the engravings / shots of building details clearer); I've centered and enlarged (350px) the side-by-side of the chapel interiors., although can't work out why they don't quite line up at top and bottom... any solutions? How's it looking now? BencherliteTalk 19:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Well done. Res Mar 23:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review - Unfortunately for me, you have a hundred thousand images in this article. :) Luckily, these images were in very nice shape; I found no copyright issues with any of them. Just a few minor issues:
 * File:Engraving Jesus College 1675.jpg - There is no real need for this, as you have a different version to source it, but is there any chance of getting the .html webpage for http://www.heatons-of-tisbury.co.uk instead of just the .jpg one?
 * File:Ralph Agas map of Oxford 1578.gif - Same as the above, but this is actually a tad more critical, because the University of Oxford claims copyright over the image. Probably another one of those things that Universities try to do, but just want to make sure.
 * For some reason, my move to commons script decided to stop working (the tab disappeared) after I moved 5 images or so. Could you please move File:Jesus College, Oxford - plan.jpg to Commons please? Thanks.
 * Well, that should be it. They aren't major issues at all, so I look forward to supporting on criterion 3 after they are resolved. NW ( Talk ) 19:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All three done, hopefully to your satisfaction. Thanks for stopping by. BencherliteTalk 21:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support on criterion 3. Good work! NW ( Talk ) 21:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.