Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of non-ecclesiastical and non-residential works by John Douglas/archive1


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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:19, 2 March 2010.

List of non-ecclesiastical and non-residential works by John Douglas

 * Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...this is the fourth (and last) of a series of lists of works by John Douglas. The other three lists are all FLs and this list follows the same format. The lead is similar, apart from the last paragraph that is modified to apply to this list. The format of the list is precisely the same as that for List of houses and associated buildings by John Douglas. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Comments Support from Hassocks


 * Sorry I can't quite do a full review at this stage: it's my lunch break, and it's about to end! I will talk about the table itself and the notes later, although a brief look offers up no concerns or questions.  As with other John Douglas lists, very little needs to be changed: another well-designed and comprehensive list.


 * TOOLBOX STUFF
 * All eternal links are fine; no disambig links in place.


 * NOTES FOR OTHER REVIEWERS
 * In case anybody wondered why the little globes next to the coordinates suddenly disappear about halfway down, apparently there is a glitch with at the moment.  See here for discussion.
 * I discussed the title with Peter soon after he created the list, and again later. The current title replaced a possibly more elegant but less accurate title which referred to "miscellaneous works".  It is very difficult to convey the necessary information about such a wide variety of structures in a title which remains both readable and encyclopaedic: alternative suggestions or comments would be welcome.


 * LEAD
 * I remember you worked on the houses list most recently. I think paragraph 2 of the lead has been copied over to this list without tweaking the text, as it still refers to houses.  I suggest recasting the last sentence of that paragraph to reflect the geographical distribution of the works that are discussed in this list.
 * Amended; I think this works. Peter I. Vardy (talk)
 * ...major, or more unusual, works... and Less usual structures... could be considered POV-ish without attribution. (I know you're trying to make the point that these are unusual in relation to his main body of work, i.e. churches and houses, but one could argue that a bridge is no less usual than a cheese factory, and so on...)  Perhaps try something like: Douglas's major works, excluding churches or houses, or structures relating to them, are described here.  Maybe Less usual structures designed by Douglas are... could become something like Other commissions include....
 * I take the latter suggestion and have changed it more or less along the lines you suggest. The first is more difficult.  I struggled with this when I wrote it.  Your suggestion does not say what I want to say; and to give a full explanation in the body of the text would interfere too much with the flow.  So what I've done is to add a footnote trying to explain why I've included what I've included.  Does this work; and is it satisfactory in this context? Peter I. Vardy (talk)


 * ALT TEXT
 * Check for typos and use of "the " instead of the more appropriate "a ". Examples taken from the first 12 pics:
 * Eastgate Clock: ...carries is clock... and ...carrying and inscription.
 * Eccleston School: with a house to the left and a school to the right woulld be better.
 * Waverton School: same as Eccleston School.
 * Wrexham Road Farm: ...showing a farmhouse on the left and farm buildings... would be better.
 * Peers Memorial, Ruthin: sqaure → square.
 * I've dealt with the above and had another look through the alt text, making more amendments. Peter I. Vardy (talk)


 * KEY TO GRADES
 * Because listing is not a static process, this would be better worded as "—" denotes a work that is not graded.
 * Done. Peter I. Vardy (talk)


 * GOOGLE AND BING MAP LINKS
 * ...are working correctly.


 * REFS (in all cases, I'm using the current ref number as at 13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC))
 * [9], [14]: needs pp.
 * [52]: needs a space between Wrexham, and Monday.
 * [79]: page number typo.
 * [122]: needs p.
 * In Billy Hobby's Well, you can replace the unnamed ref to P&H page 160 with, as you are already using it at 5–9 Northgate Street.
 * Same for Warburton School and Church House, Warburton, which both use P&H page 376 with unnamed refs.
 * All fixed. Peter I. Vardy (talk)

Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the detailed comments and advice. I'm always surprised that when you think you've checked everything, you haven't! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All changes look fine. I'm happy with the explanation provided in the footnote regarding "major" and "unusual".  Hope to add comments about the table itself and the notes tomorrow (probably lunchtime), but I don't think much will need changing.  Cheers,  Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  23:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies that I couldn't do this on Friday as expected. Here are my comments (mostly minor stuff) on the table itself:

TABLE
 * I'll go through from the top.


 * Boteler Grammar School
 * The school was a building in brick with stone dressings having a central tower with a pyramidal roof. Awkward ("the school was a building..."). Perhaps The school was built of brick with stone dressings, and had....  Also, the "Corporation Works Department": was that for the Development Corporation of the New Town by any chance?  If so, suggest a piped link to that article.  (If you can't find info to support that in the refs, don't worry.)
 * Text amended as suggested. The Corporation Works Department would have been that of the town or borough (not sure which) council; the Warrington Development Corporation came later.


 * Billy Hobby's Well
 * Blurb reads as though the spring was built for the 2nd M. of w. Try Douglas' work, for the 2nd Marquess of Westminster, consists....
 * Done


 * St Werburgh Chambers, Chester and St Werburgh's Mount, Chester
 * Do you have any more info. on who G. Hodgkinson was? The name on its own leaves the reader wondering.  Perhaps just add his client in one of the blurbs.
 * No idea. I've added "his client" to both blurbs (because of sorting).


 * Aldford Cheese Factory
 * Shame about its obscurity. I had a look on Google and found little as well (although apparently the Flintshire Record Office holds/held a copy of its Rules and Regulations book from 1890!).
 * Frustrating. I included it because it was a second cheese factory, and not Douglas' usual sphere of work (although I suspect its architecture would have been "typically" Douglas, as is the Balderton factory).


 * Cottage Hospital
 * Check whether this is it; if so, you can add the coordinates.
 * Even more frustrating. The present community hospital looks like this, obviously modern and not Douglas.  Its address is Ash Grove.  Hubbard (Buildings of Wales) says "now l. [left] into GWERNAFFIELD ROAD and past Douglas's COTTAGE HOSPITAL ..."  The community hospital is some 300m from the nearest part of Gwernaffield Road.  But there are recent references to "Mold Cottage Hospital" - minutes of meetings and reports of deaths.  I suspect that Douglas' hospital has closed (does it still exist?) and has been replaced by the community hospital.  "Gwernaffield Road" added to location and notes amended.


 * Grosvenor Club and North and South Wales Bank
 * frieze containing sounds odd. Try "with" instead.
 * Done


 * Castle Hotel, Conwy
 * Use of the passive voice makes it unclear what work Douglas did: was it the whole remodelling?
 * Reworded. Does this work?


 * School
 * Does Hubbard have any more info about who William Jones was? (Don't worry if not.)
 * No. Included because of its unusual distance from Douglas' office.


 * Lyceum, Port Sunlight
 * Diapering has a broken wilikink.
 * Corrected (sorry, thought I had already done this).


 * Public baths, Chester
 * Mixed singular and plural ("were"; "is").
 * Wording amended.


 * Eastgate Clock
 * The first sentence is a sentence fragment, which can be eliminated by putting a comma after Jubilee or (better) adding something like This was at the start.
 * Wording amended.


 * 30 Bridge Street, Chester
 * Passive voice; clarify whether Douglas was responsible for the original building or the rebuilding.
 * Wording amended.

Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Responded to the above. All OK? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased to be able to Support this nomination following today's changes. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support a very nice piece of work... well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Support (although there's one very minor issue below, that shouldn't hold up promotion). Mm40 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Some notes have full stops while others don't; be consistent
 * Sorry couldn't find them. Please specify.
 * None of the references formatted with Citation have full stops. Mm40 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my misunderstanding; I thought you meant the Notes column, which I scoured and found no absentees. Now I realise it was the Notes under References; the full stops have been added.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the last two reviewers and the trouble you've taken. I've just been away and have a few things to catch up with, but will try to answer the comments in the next few days. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I have addressed the points made above, although not necessarily solved all the problems. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - a lot of my portion of the review is in what Mm40 wrote in his review, I'll be glad to re-review once their comments are resolved. So I will revisit then to avoid conflict and repetition. T ru  c o   503 02:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.