Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Castell Coch/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC).

Castell Coch

 * Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC), User:Hchc2009, User:KJP1

This article is about Castell Coch, a quaint Gothic Revival castle to the north of Cardiff in south Wales, which was built by William Burges for John Crichton-Stuart, 3rd Marquess of Bute in the 1870s. A castle had existed on the site in medieval times but later fell into ruin. The interior design of the castle has been cited as one of the shining examples of the High Victorian Gothic, though Bute rarely used the place as a residence. For a period a vineyard was cultivated at the castle, unusual in Britain. Today it is run by the Welsh heritage agency Cadw.

Hchc2009 especially, and myself and KJP1 have extensively researched this and believe it is now comprehensive enough and of a high enough quality following the peer review to run as a viable candidate here. We hope you enjoy it and feel the same. This also has something of personal meaning, being born in Cardiff myself and knowing how this castle is beloved by many in south Wales and its importance to Welsh heritage. Thanks... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I went over this article at PR, and it's only improved since then. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Really appreciate your input at Peer Review and your support here. KJP1 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Burges died in 1881 from a chill": What's a lethal chill?
 * I agree it does sound unlikely now and, for that reason, Curly Turkey queried it at peer review. I give Hchc2009's response below:
 * "In the 19th century, yes (death from a chill was possible); open or unheated carriages, the South Wales hills in mid-winter, no central heating, the extremely poor air quality from burning coal etc. made this sort of thing common in the Victorian period. Even my grandparents (thoroughly post-Victorian, I should add!) were absolutely insistent on members of the family dressing up warmly, wearing scarves and so on to prevent serious chills reaching the chest."
 * It's supported by all the sources and I hope that's ok. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well ... the germ theory of disease wasn't broadly accepted until the late 1800s, so contemporary sources probably listed the cause of death as miasma or something similar. You'll pardon me if I'm sceptical. The main problem for me isn't a factual problem, it's a readability problem ... that is, will a reader quickly and naturally settle on a meaning for the words "died in 1881 from a chill"? I think they'll probably fumble around trying to work it out. Perhaps: "died in 1881 after a site visit to the draughty, chilly castle" or (if the sources support this) "died in 1881 from a fever contracted after a site visit to the draughty, chilly castle" - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should stick to the cited source, which states that he died of a chill, rather than elaborating our own opinions (right or wrong!) which would feel like OR. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC) - NB: we could potentially links to chills? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither of my suggestions were OR, because I said "if the sources support this". If you have good reason to believe that the sources meant "fever" when they said "chill", then I think "fever" is less ambiguous for 21st-century readers. If you don't know if the sources meant "fever", then I'm wondering what the sources meant. - Dank (push to talk) 22:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now gone back as closely in the text as I can; I think to go further we're either going to have to a) find a modern source which speculates on what he actually had (e.g. was it really pneumonia, a chest infection, influenza, or cholera, etc.); b) caveat it as "...described at the time as..." to make it clear this is a 19th-century description; or potentially c) add in a footnote saying something like "In 19th-century Britain, the term "a chill" was used to refer to a variety of medical conditions in which a patient appeared to shiver and suffered a drop in temperature, including..." and find a source for it (which I think could be done). Hchc2009 (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was also going to suggest a footnote. Crook quotes from the Abstract of Burges's diaries as follows; "had a long ride in a dog cart and got very cold."  Crook goes on to say, following Burges's return to the Tower House;  "There he lingered, half paralysed, for three weeks." (Crook, 2013, p=341) Could that be the basis for a footnote explaining that, in Victorian times, "chill" was a portmanteau term for a variety of, not fully-understood, conditions? KJP1 (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd want us to find a more specific source for our statement on the portmanteau aspect, but I'm sure we could find one - there have to be plenty of works on Victorian medical thought we could find. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, now we're on the same page, no objections to any of that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers, will try and ID a good source for it later on. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Proved slightly harder than I'd expected, but I've found a reliable source that discusses the changes in pathology etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd have liked to work in The Importance of being Earnest where Ernest is "carried off suddenly, in Paris, by a severe chill" but I think this works very well. KJP1 (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "the original finishings. ... The original furnishings ...": a little jarring
 * Done by deletion of the first original. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The praise in Overview is a little bit repetitive.
 * I've addressed this by removing the McLees and Crook quotes, both of which appear the lede. But others may want to revisit/re-word this.  KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Many readers won't recognize "x" as a plural ending, so I went with "châteaus".
 * Back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 05:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated and look forward to further comments. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Burges noting at the time": Just noting that I don't take a position on so-called "absolute constructions" or WP:PLUSING, though some do, strenuously. I did change one of them.
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy with the changes. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support; another PR visitor, happy with what I saw at the time, and strengthened since then. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We're very grateful for your improvements at Peer Review and for your support here. KJP1 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I should add that the only quibble I have is on the section names. To my mind "11–14th centuries" and "20–21st centuries" looks odd. I would have thought that "11th–14th centuries" and "20th–21st centuries" would be more correct, but I can't find anything in the MoS to clarify which it is. - SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done - by amendment in line with your suggestion. I had a look at Windsor Castle and, although it's not an exact parallel, it does have a section headed "11th and 12th century".  Others may want to review.  KJP1 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, KJP1. Others will probably know better, but unfortunately the MoS doesn't give us any clarity on this point. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this at PR, but it was already nicely polished before I got there. Everything looks absolutely fine to me; it's a well-written article on a very interesting subject.-RHM22 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your support is very much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments, leaning to support. An impressive article and a nice companion to The Tower House which I read not long ago. I missed the peer review of this one, so have a few points for consideration, but I suspect that these will not prove problematic:
 * Lead
 * The statement "Castell Coch's external features and the lavish, High Victorian interiors make it one of the finest works of its period" is too opinionated unless attributed. Otherwise needs moderating.
 * Hope I have addressed this by moving the McLees quote for attribution and removing a "lavish". KJP1 (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * History
 * "The new castle was built in stone around the motte..." → "A new castle was built in stone around the motte..."
 * Done. KJP1 (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that some of the images in this section are out of kilter with the text. For example, Ibbetson's painting clearly belongs in the 15–19thc subsection, and Burges's drawings would fit better in the Reconstruction subsection. One way of dealing with this without causing too much image congestion would be to absorb the contents of the "This concludes..." quote box (or a prècis of it) into the text. Then move Ibbetson to the 15–19th, the drawings to the Reconconstruction subsection with the photograph. Worth considering, I believe.
 * "Robert Drane recommended the site as a place for picnics, and abundant in wild garlic". Slightly iffy grammar here; perhaps "Robert Drane recommended the site as a place for picnics, and noted its abundance in wild garlic".
 * Done. KJP1 (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A little too much detail in the fourth paragraph of the "Reconstruction" section concerning Bute's wine-making? In any event the four separate refs for the final sentence looks like over-citation.
 * I'll leave this one to Hchc2009. I tend to agree that perhaps the answer is less detail here and a separate article on the Castell Coch vineyard.  I think there is more than enough material.  KJP1 (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The word "inherited" is a bit over-used to describe the transfer of the castle between generations. It's not a word for which synonyms easily suggest themselves, but you could possibly use "took over" or "acquired" one one or more occasion.
 * Done - by changing two. KJP1 (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "The property is now administered..." needs date specificity. Also, giving the visitor figures for 2011, four years ago, already makes the article seem dated. Do we need a precise figure and year – wouldn't a general mention of "around 70,000 a year" do just as well?
 * The figures vary over time before then, so I think it would be OR to generalise and predict the last four years. I haven't been able to find a more recent figure unfortunately. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done the first bit, by giving the date of CADW's formation. Do we need the visitor numbers?  KJP1 (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think they're a useful part of its description as a tourist attraction. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure how to take this forward? KJP1 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Retaining a 2011 visitors' figure is going to look increasingly arbitrary and dated as time goes by. If you don't have source information which enables you to generalise about annual visitor numbers, then you should omit the figure. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it requires removal/action... The figures for 2012-14 haven't been published online yet (that we've found), but a gap of 36 months doesn't force us to delete the latest figures we do have. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * However, retaining a 2011 visitors' figure is going to look increasingly arbitrary and dated as time goes by. It's already four years old. If you don't have source information which enables you to generalise about annual visitor numbers, then you should omit the figure. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be deleting information because it hasn't been updated on-line in 36 months (it isn't actually four years old, as we won't have the 2015 figures until the start of 2016 at the earliest, for obvious reasons!). We wouldn't, for example, be deleting previous census data for towns on that basis etc. If it became seriously dated, fair enough, but 36 months isn't really that long, in my opinion. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's a mistaken view, but if your co-nominators are in agreement with you I won't press the matter further. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll continue to look for a more up-to-date set of figures. I found a 2014 publication but this only gave global CADW figures, not those for individual sites. KJP1 (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "The interior decoration remains in good condition, although the exposed building suffers from penetrating damp and has required restoration work" is another sentence that needs to be date-specific.
 * Have sought to give the renovations chronological flow. Have lost the reference to Lord B's bed in the process but I don't think this is critical.  KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Architecture
 * I'm slightly confused by the statement in the text that the Keep and the Kitchen Tower have the same diameter; this is far from evident in the diagram. And later, the lengthways dimension of the courtyard is given as 64ft, yet from the plan the yard seems to be about three times the width of the keep (39ft).
 * I've just done a quick measurement by paper and screen on those two towers (NB: non-scientific) - they do seem to be the same diameter on the plan as well, as far as I can see, as per the cited source. Similarly on measuring the courtyard by paper and screen, the courtyard does look to be about 60-something ft across on the plan, as per the cited source. I can fish out the original hardcopy Ministry image and check on that with a ruler (slightly more scientific!) if you're still worried though. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we were measuring on   different bases – I was only considering the "white" parts, i.e. not the thickness of the walls. So your figures are fine – no further action necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "...similar to some of the towers built at contemporary Caerphilly" – can you clarify to what this refers?
 * I think it means that the flat, as opposed to curved, back (interior) side of the Well Tower matches similar, flat backs to towers at Caerphilly. But it is really HCs area. Re-reading it, I also wonder whether the reference to "contemporary Caerphilly" is a bit problematic.  Contemporary to the original castle, indeed, but not to the castle that Burges built.  Although the Marquess did undertake restoration work at Caerphilly.  KJP1 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The wording is currently meaningless to the general reader and needs to be properly explained. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the wording a bit, see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's better. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "The hall is relatively austere..." relative to what?
 * Done - by removal. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Marquess's bedroom..." In case any readers should fail to realise that Lord Bute id the Marquess, I'd simply say "This bedroom..."
 * Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Landscape
 * "one of the most westerly" – in the UK? Europe? Unless more specific this might perplex US readers.
 * Done - by making clear it's among the most westerly in the British Isles. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine work from a competent team. Brianboulton (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Very much appreciate your improvements and your kind comments. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Support: All but one of my queries has been dealt with satisfactorily and I'm not pressing for that. Well done team. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Really grateful for your working on improving the article and for your support. Shall continue to look for some more recent visitor numbers.  KJP1 (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Support – Another peer reviewer checking in. I was happy then and am happy now. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. The article faithfully captures the mesmeric god-awfulness of Burges's work, and I second Brian B's compliment above to the trio of editors who have brought the page up to this fine quality. –  Tim riley  talk    15:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I almost can't bring myself to thank you for that comment, but I do! Thanks and best regards.  KJP1 (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Support - Very well written, well presented article with excellent historical and architectural details.--Ipigott (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Very much appreciate your comments and your support. KJP1 (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Support - Was a pleasure to read the article. Continue your good work. Nice arrangement of the pics for the interior design BTW. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 02:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delighted you enjoyed the article and thank you for your support. KJP1 (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * Done now, I think. KJP1 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Castell_Coch_-_allegorical_wallpaper.jpg: since this is a reproduction of a 2D work, the photographer does not have a copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hc is the author and better placed to address as copyright is not my forte. KJP1 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically, I'm the uploader, not the photographer! The tag notes that it is PD in the US and, while I know the Wiki line on reproductions of 2D art makes it strictly unnecessary in terms of US hosting rules, it is useful for us Brits to know that we can safely use it in the UK as well as the US, as the photographer has tagged it with a UK compliant CC label. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note -- just a reminder it looks like we still need a source review at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN119 is returning timeout error
 * This is certainly working for me. KJP1 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Since your GBooks links are based on title searches, you can truncate to id - for example, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LkrVs8xS2tIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Conservation+of+Building+and+Decorative+Stone,+Volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ei=el4QVYXxFYPUOM_9geAG&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Conservation%20of%20Building%20and%20Decorative%20Stone%2C%20Volume%202&f=false can be simply https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LkrVs8xS2tIC
 * Sorry - beyond me and I daren't meddle. KJP1 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Check alphabetization of Sources
 * These look right now. KJP1 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * How does Brown meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
 * I'll leave Hc to respond. If it doesn't, I think we can probably lose it. KJP1 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOLARSHIP allows for the use of completed PhDs from reliable institutions. The Welsh School of Architecture at Cardiff University is a specialist institution for the study of (unsurprisingly!) Welsh architecture, so pertinent for Castell Coch, and was ranked in the top 5 in the UK for its research work on architecture in 2008; in 2013 it reached number 2 in the league tables in the UK. The claims being cited aren't exceptional in character. The source therefore meets the WP:SCHOLARSHIP standards. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For US locations, state would probably be more helpful than just US. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done - I think. KJP1 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think most/all of these have been addressed? KJP1 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nikki, are you happy to sign off on the source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.