Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Matthew Brettingham

Matthew Brettingham
Another architectural page by Giano for your viewing pleasure. By no means a self-nom, although I have done a little copyediting.--Bishonen | Talk 00:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, although I think the lead could be expanded a bit. Filiocht 12:52, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Lead expanded (a bit) Thanks for the vote Filiocht. Giano 16:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Support PRiis 19:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. A well written, informative article. Thryduulf 17:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: We need more articles on real, historically significant folks in the arts. Geogre 01:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, but some suggestions: 1. Are there any reliable online sources that could be used as references directly on Brettingham? 2. Some statements are POV without direct citation to a source. Things as simple as "one of the country's foremost architects" need citation to a source to be NPOV. What does foremost mean exactly anyway, is he one of the greatest architects ever, one of the best of his time, most well known of his time or now?, etc. 3. One of the external links, if I read it right does claim he at least re-designed Holkham. So that statement that he did not design it could use clarification and citation. Overall well written and good research has been done.  Just needs a bit more. - Taxman 17:15, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote Taxman. I agree with your points and have made some small changes to address them.  The problem is this man is very undocumented, I even suspect this may be the longest thing on the internet about him.  He is often erroneously credited with the design of Holkham Hall, even by people who should know better! He did not.  He was a sort of superior foreman and builder, I think I have made this clear in the article, and the written references, support this.  I included the links more to provide pictures, and proof of his very existence, than anything else.  Would it be better to delete the link?  Holkham has never been rebuilt, and is today exactly as designed.  Incidentally,  I would love to have added that were it not for Robert Adam, he would be world famous today, but that would have been POV. Giano 21:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Good points. If there are no very good online resources, then so be it. No need to remove links, you can cover in the article that a given reliable source disagrees with what so and so claims if need be. As to that statement you mentioned, it is not POV if you can find someone that claims similar and cite the comment to them. Especially if that is well supported by unbaised sources. Ideally use some form of inline citation like "example statement" (Example author, 2004), and then list that reference at the bottom too or use one that is there. As to your question on my talk page, yes I think it would be valuable on the talk page to discuss how you consulted various sources. There is certainly no downside to it. - Taxman 14:52, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have written a couple of paragraphs at Talk:Matthew Brettingham (with an explaining link in the reference section) explaining the lack of internet references and various contradictions concerning Brettingham; and why I have included in the main article only what is proven or generally held to be the truth by more authoritative sources than me. Giano 17:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)