Wikipedia:Featured article review/Matthew Brettingham/archive1


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

The article was kept 12:24, 27 March 2008.

Matthew Brettingham

 * Notified WikiProject Architecture, User:Giano and User:Danny.

It's not in compliance with WP:LEAD, it's has poor citations, and there are certain other MOS issues. I realize that this has been nominated for FAR(C) twice before, and kept rather strongly, but standards change, and the last nomination was two years ago. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 00:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My initial impression is that the article is a strong one. I intend to go through the article more carefully, and will try to address the issues raised above. DrKiernan (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do people like this image or not:



Unfortunately, there's scaffolding up at the moment so it's not the best. Also, the lighting's bad but there's not a great deal I can do about that when photographing a north front in winter. DrKiernan (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider asking one of the experts at Featured Images to see if they can improve the photo; otherwise, I don't think this photo will be helpful in bringing the article in line for featured status. Risker (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I've uploaded a modified version. DrKiernan (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you find poor about the citations? I don't quite follow. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added eight extra references since that original comment was made. DrKiernan (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see, good work. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow DrK, you went above and beyond in actually going and out taking a pic for a FAR! I agree the lighting isn't great, but it's good enough for article space, IMO, and I think should be included.

Are people ready to keep this in general? Marskell (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be kept. The lead, like the article, is short but succinct. It could be broken into 2 paras if that will make people happier, or added to, although it seems to include all major points. The citations, now improved, look sufficient to me. More pics are needed, and the Dr's excellent effort should certainly go in, improved or not. Country houses in the north of England don't spend much of their time basking in sunshine, and there is no harm in a photo showing a more typical situation. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd be happy to close this too. I agree that the lead, though short, contains the relevant points. I've moved up the older picture of Kedleston to the lead, as the caption encapsulates the essence of the article, and moved the picture of Holkham to the "Architect" section. DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.