Wikipedia:Peer review/Cragside/archive1

Cragside
Designed by Richard Norman Shaw for William Armstrong, 1st Baron Armstrong, Cragside is a house of firsts. The first in the world to be lit by hydroelectricity, it also topped Mark Girouard's list of Victorian houses that should be saved for the nation. Armstrong was the first scientist and the first engineer to be raised to the peerage, taking his title from the name of his home. A joint peer review nomination from User:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered and myself, we want to take the article to FAC. Any and all suggestions for improvements will be most gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
Only a few minor drafting points from me. The substance of the article seems first rate, and the illustrations and references are all excellent.
 * Lead
 * The quotation in the first paragraph needs a citation. The MoS, unless my senescent memory deceives me, indicates that though one keeps the lead as free from citations as possible, direct quotations should be cited.
 * ✅ - Duly cited.


 * Modern magician
 * "workaholic" – I'm not convinced that this useful slang word has yet passed into use in formal English. The OED calls it "colloq. (orig. N. Amer.)", which is fairly damning on two counts.
 * ✅ - Removed.


 * Shooting box: 1862–1865
 * "...two-storey box "of little architectural distinction"..." – if the phrase is worth putting in quotes you might say in the text whom you are quoting.
 * ✅ - Removed the quotes as unnecessary.


 * Fairy palace: 1869–1900
 * Richard Norman Shaw – You keep trotting out his full name, but he was always known as "Norman Shaw" tout court. Cf the old Scotland Yard: Norman Shaw Buildings. I have before me a copy of a letter from him to my employer (from before my time, lest you were wondering):
 * I think I must have been in a frisky and extravagant frame of mind when I saw the suggested frontages on plan A adjoining Vigo Street…as a stupid muddled headed old architect I find myself always longing for a general scheme…pray pardon my prosiness and believe me to remain, yours very faithfully, R. Norman Shaw.
 * See also his Times obituary: "Mr. Norman Shaw, R.A." (12 November 1912, p. 11).
 * ✅ - I think he's now Norman Shaw throughout, after his introduction.
 * I fear I may have unwittingly misled you into thinking "Norman Shaw" a double barrelled surname. Norman was a given name, and the one he actually used. What is wanted here is to call him Norman Shaw, at first mention (piping, as the WP article confusingly adds his unused first name) and then just call him Shaw thereafter.  Tim riley  talk    17:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did wonder as I was going through! It's not a problem at all, and I'll attend to it immediately. KJP1 (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And now all as it should be, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Fairy palace: 1869–1900
 * "The latter had taught him..." We're two sentences distant from the mention of Street, and I think you'd be clearer if you named him again here instead of lattering him.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * "Sir John Everett Millais's ... Andrew Lloyd Webber." If we're giving Millais his Sir we should give give Lloyd Webber his Lord. I wouldn't give either, on balance.
 * ✅ - As per advice, have dropped the Sir from Millais.


 * Armstrong's heirs: 1900–the present
 * "re-wiring" – the OED does not hyphenate this word.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * I struggle with your rationale for capitalising bits of the property. To me it should be either electrical room, palm house and orchid house, or Electrical Room, Palm House and Orchid House.
 * ✅ - Done. The isn't a rationale, just my slip-shod editing.


 * Architecture and description
 * "while James Stevens Curl thought ... while the architectural critics" – excessive use of "while" to mean merely "and" (or possiby "but"). "While" as used here is what Fowler calls a weak conjunction, as opposed to "and" or "but" which are strong ones. "While" can also lead one into unintended temporal farce on the lines of "The Dean read the Lessons while the Bishop preached the sermon", or "Miss X sang Bach while Mr Y played Beethoven".
 * ✅ - Done by replacement.


 * "Criticism focusses" – focuses, please.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * "contemporaneous with Cragside; the Villa Hügel" – you need a colon (or dash) rather than a semicolon here.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * "Pevsner and Richmond call both the setting and the house Wagnerian" – they can't have seen many Wagner productions. A half-timbered Valhalla, Wartburg or Montsalvat? Er, no!
 * ❌ - I'm only quoting the sources!
 * I know, and of course you are right to do so, even though they clearly know more about architecture than opera. Pevsner, by the way, shows himself up as an outsider by calling Armstrong a "nobleman": in late 19thC Britain it would have been unthinkable to use that word for a newly-elevated pleb. You had to have posh ancestors to be a nobleman. But enough of this!  Tim riley  talk    17:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Gallery
 * "Lit by twelve overhead lamps, the illumination could be supplemented" – the illumination was lit? That is what the prose currently says, but I think you mean the room was lit.
 * ✅ - Done, I hope.


 * Billiard room
 * Capitals, as above. At present this paragraph mentions the "Billiard room" and the "billiard room".
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Technology
 * 'the first proper installation' – quotes should be double according to the MoS.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * "10%" – the MoS bids us write "per cent" out rather than use the % sign in text.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Grounds and estate
 * "the great, dark trees form a protective barrier to (Armstrong's) home" – calls out for an inline attribution.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Blue links
 * To my mind you go over the top in linking everyday expressions. Do your readers really need to leave your article to find out what a dishwasher is? Or a patron? Or a gong? Ice cream? Smoking?
 * "Spit" is linked three times.
 * ✅ - Done.

That's all from me. Please ping me when you go to FAC. –  Tim riley  talk    12:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Tim - You're a star! All the comments are much appreciated and I shall action them asap. Thanks very much for taking the time. Hopefully, your comments will spark some more interest. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Tim, I think these are all done now. Many thanks, the article's much improved. KJP1 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
Sorry to have been so long. Here are some minor comments on the lead and history sections. I may reserve further comments so I have something to say at the FAC, when it comes. It looks an excellent effort, delightfully illustrated, too.
 * Lead
 * "In 1868, he employed the architect R. Norman Shaw to extend a banqueting hall in his house in Newcastle." I don't think the information in this sentence is leadworthy.
 * ✅ - Removed and refactored.


 * Direct quotations in the lead need to be referenced (see para 2)
 * ✅ - Done.


 * "the house passed to the Trust" suggests a gift, which does not seeem to be the case. Perhaps "passed to" → "was acquired by".
 * ✅ - Done. I was quite tempted to put "bought by" but I realized that I don't know what legal process took place so that is safer.


 * History
 * "At the same time, he established himself..." – at the same time as what? I'd delete these four words.
 * ✅ - done with slight adjustment to relink the ideas - hope it's better.


 * "was to enable" → "enabled"
 * ✅ - yes!


 * "The original connection between Armstrong and Shaw was made...": As this is the first mention of Shaw in the main text, he should have full name, description and link.
 * ✅ - indeed, and now he does, thanks.


 * "reminiscing years later": When are we talking about? Years after the thirty years just mentioned? Perhaps be a little more date-related, e.g. "reminiscing towards the end of his life"?
 * ✅ - done. The source does say "in his old age" so per your comment I have used that. I will try to find out if there is an actual date for when he said this, if I can find the source for the source (ermm?)


 * "Cragside, and his fortune..." → "Cragside, and Armstrong's fortune..."
 * ✅ - done, yes, awkward read as we had it


 * You refer to "death duties" in the lead, and "inheritance tax" in the text. They are one and the same, but consistency in terminology is best.
 * ✅ - absolutely. I have gone for IT but others might prefer DD, as it perhaps sounds a bit more old-school, Victorian ... I don't think it matters which as long as we are consistent.


 * And, per lead comment, "pass to" should be "acquired by".
 * ✅ - Done while I was at it above.


 * On Tim's point re overlinking, I might de-blue "epitaph".
 * ✅ - done. I worried that it was a bit borderline for keeping, but actually if you read the sentence it does nail the definition from the context, so it's gone unless someone wants to fight for it.

Incidentally, was old Armstrong he of Armstrong-Siddeley car fame? We had an old Sapphire as our family car when I was a kid. I seem to remember my father complaining that he "couldn't get spare parts". Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , many thanks for these helpful comments. I'm working through them and hope to have them finished later. Good Q on the car; the short answer is "yes" although I think it was a later acquisition rather than a foundation by Armstrong. I am going to stick my neck out and say that almost any heavy engineering business with the A-word in its name is related somehow to this massively significant figure. A family tree of all the linkages and mergers would be most instructive! Thanks again DBaK (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Update - all done now I think. Thanks so much for the comments and the further improvement to the article. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , and a very fine motor it looks. The company was formed through a 1919 takeover of Siddeley-Deasy by Armstrong Whitworth. The old man was long in his Rothbury grave by then. Glad you liked the article and much appreciate the comments. All of which have been ably dealt with by DBK so I shall just go and make the tea. We'll certainly ping you when we arrive at FAC. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat
An excellent article with very little to pick up on. A couple of minor things to look at:


 * Lead
 * You should probably say who said "one of the most dramatic compositions in all architecture", just so we know the opinion is a worthwhile one.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Fairy Palace
 * I'm not a fan of constructs like "August 1884 saw...": possibly reword to say that "In August 1884..."?
 * ✅ - No, me neither. It is gorn.


 * Armstrong's heirs
 * The date format of "December 27th 1900" should be changed to "27 December 1900" for consistency.
 * ✅ - gosh, yes.


 * "what Pevsner considers": probably worth a word or two to explain what "Pevsner" is, for the uninitiated.
 * ✅ - Done. Until I can sort out whether this is Pevsner himself or a co- or later author, I've credited it to the Guide rather than Sir NP, but I will do a bookcase expedition to try and check.
 * Update from DBaK - we are leaving it credited to the book rather than the bloke. The former is correct either way and easy to prove; the latter is neither. I think it works either way because we are telling the truth; people who know about Pevsner (basically that it can be either an individual or a label for a book series) will get it, and those wo do not can click the link and learn about the Guide series. I understand that this is called a win-win.


 * Library and dining room
 * Link inglenook?
 * ✅ - Yeah but no but. Looking at it reveals a structural problem where we talk about "another" one but actually we haven't mentioned them yet. I will talk to The Boss and sort this properly.
 * Update from DBaK - this is now sorted to my satisfaction.


 * Drawing room
 * De-link inglenook
 * ✅ - Done, whatever is going on above.


 * I'm not sure what is happening with "example(.), with"
 * ✅ - me neither. It must represent omitted text and I have edited it and another instance to the more conventional [...], though I must check the MOS on what we like for this, and with in case I have broken something.
 * Update from DBaK - checked the MOS and as a result took out the square brackets.


 * Grounds
 * "Armstrong's most recent biographer": do we need to know they are the most recent? As it could go out of date at some point, you may as well future proof where you can by dropping "most recent". (Ditto the repeated information in the footnote).
 * ✅ - Done. No, we do not, but it perhaps interesting that they are recentish so they do represent a view roughly contemporary with ours now so I have de-hostaged them by just pointing out the publication dates but removing the Latest'N'Greatest (ahem) bit.

All very minor points in an excellent article. Please drop me a line when you go to FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your very useful comments . I think I've addressed them all above, though I'm left with a couple of things to check with my books or with KJP1, who knows stuff. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - Really appreciate the time and the comments. Very helpful and DBK's picked them all up. We shall certainly let you know when we drive on to FAC, although unfortunately not in Brian's splendid Sapphire. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Update from DBaK - everything here is now checked and amended - you'll see that I've added a couple of trivial notes above. Thank you again for your comments, and best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry
On a tablet on a train, please excuse brevity/typos
 * In that period, when asked by the National Trust that sentence is a bit of a mouthful; suggest splitting it up.
 * On that note, I see the lead uses "in that period" though the body says "some years later", which could be interpreted differently. A more precise date would be helpful.
 * ✅ - Done, minor rewords to accommodate. It was 1971, ah how well I remember ...


 * Just for context, it might be worth including the year of listing in the lead
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Who are Aslet and Powers?
 * ✅ - Done. It's slightly circular argument but in effect I have said "they are the blokes who wrote this book" since that is what defines them here. Does it work? I thinkhope so. Also please see below on the pitfall of having to say the bloke what wrote books 594 times.


 * Likewise some of the other authors quoted; if they're important enough to quote their opinions they're worth two or three introductory words.
 * ✅ - Done. Thanks. I think I've got them all but please yell if I missed some. It's a slightly thankless task to write up because pretty much everyone is the architectural historian or the architect and writer or at least the author famous (or cheap??) enough to have been commissioned to write this book for the NT or whoever so one does tend to repeat things, as well as using some repetition and saying the same thing several times over. If they were the flower seller or the airline pilot they probably wouldn't get a look in here. Having said that, I agree that they need some sort of label and we can't just stick a banner over the top saying these are all famous architectural writers, so I've tried to comply. And I will never never omit the the!


 * I would certainly include the date (or at least the year) of listing in the body,.
 * ✅ - Done thanks.


 * Whose opinion is "largely complete Victorian interior"?
 * ✅ - ah yes good point, it's actually in the listing itself but we didn't make this clear ... and now we do!

Not a lot to criticise really. I haven't looked in detail at the sources and mainly focused on the prose but I imagine I'd support at FAC. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  18:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks, Harry, for these very useful comments. I have dealt with them to the best of my limited ability and a proper editor will probably come along and sort me out one of these days. It is absolutely great, and rather humbling, to have all this fantastic input into the story of this wacky and rather loveable old house. DBaK (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - Harry, thanks so much for the feedback and we'd be very grateful for your support at FAC. We'll let you know when it goes. DBK's picked up all the comments and I hope your journey back wasn't too dull! Thanks again and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look and I think you got everything. By the way, I have a copy of Houses of the National Trust by Lydia Greeves, which includes a nice double page spread on Cragside. I'll email photos to KJP (since I have his email address). HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceoil
Not much to say thus far; its very good, and enjoying reading through.
 * One thing that puzzled me - among others, the Shah of Persia, the King of Siam and the Crown Prince of Japan were fêted, and sold to, under Armstrong's roof. This could be stated in a clearer way.
 * ✅ - Done. I've reworded it a bit, trying not to lose the poetry but make it clearer - does it work?
 * Installed in the library, the gallery and in the gallery and stairwells - Checking that stairwells is correctly plural, ie was there more than one in the stairwells
 * ✅ - oh yes, good point - no, it seems that Dixon was referring specifically to the Morris glass in the Upper Stairs so we can't really say this. Difficult to prove a negative but, for example, Dixon's photo of the Stair Hall shows us no glass at all as it is internal and mostly adorned with panelling and painting. I've changed it to "upper stairs" as that is clearly (haha) right and more would be speculation, unless a source says otherwise ...
 * Sources all seem like of the first rank, and the formatting is fine. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there any chance the lead image can be made larger.
 * Comment - not by me (DBaK) so I will wait for help/more views.
 * ✅ - Copying from a fabulous article somebody did on St Fin Barre's seems to give the answer. Assuming it is ok for FAC, as it worked for St F's. KJP1 (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Link, if possible 'dumb waiter' and 'spit'. Ditto 'half-timbering'.
 * ✅ - Yes. I think we were previously a touch overlinked and then took out quite a lot - I hope this is a reasonable MOR approach to putting in a couple!
 * sold in the 1910 sale (in the library sect) could be rephrased.
 * ✅ - could, should, and has been, thanks!
 * These are minor quibbles, and I will be supporting this at FAC. Ceoil (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for these very useful remarks and for your proposed support at FAC ... watch this space! So glad you enjoyed reading it: Cragside is an incredible place. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * yes it is, and sound DBaK, have gotten satisfaction from your resolves. Ceoil (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! DBaK (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - Really appreciate the feedback, it's most helpful, and we'll let you know when we head off to FAC. Thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * One last thing, I find the use of the term "smart home" to be a little too on the nose. The contemporary term, home automation, might be better. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I've had a go at improving it - what do you think? Thanks as ever for the comments. DBaK (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda
Looks impressive at a glance! I replaced all fixed image sizes, to accomodate users' preferences. Only minor comments:

Lead
 * " Cragside became an integral part of Armstrong's commercial operations; among others, the Shah of Persia, the King of Siam ..." - reading over the little semi-colon, it reads as if the Shah was a commercial operation ;)
 * ✅ - good point. I have reinforced the semicolon into a colon to try and balance the sentence, and explained earlier in that clause what these people are. That said, I am not sure I like what I wrote, so if anyone wants to make it read in a less clunky manner, edit away!

 General
 * Headers like "Modern Magician" are cute, but I haven't seen the style on WP ;) - I think they should be as clear as possible when reading the TOC.
 * ✅ - yup. It's fun but prolly we shouldn't!

Modern Magician
 * I think as he is not a magician, it should be UC or italic or in quote marks in the image caption. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - I'm unclear about this Gerda - the caption to the lead image has it but the whole caption is in quote marks and cited so it's clear (erm, is it or is that just me?) that it's just what someone said rather than a claim in our voice that he actually was Gandalf. That said, I would rather wait for another view on this, and/or clarification from you as to what you would like. Sorry, I feel as if I am probably being a bit thick here! (Not a new phenomenon.) Thanks for all this and extra thanks for the image size thing, whose effects I really ought to try to comprehend! Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - yup I WAS being stupid! Sorry Gerda, thanks Martin. Sheesh. :) DBaK (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would regret the loss of "modern magician". We know it's Armstrong, from the lead above and the "Main article" strapline below. If the concern is that it is unencyclopedic, can we not just quote it as, "Modern magician" or "a modern magician", referencing Girouard (as per the infobox), or even the World (1879), from which it comes? It isn't one I'd die in a ditch over, but perhaps there is a balance to be struck between clarity and prose that engages (FA criteria 1a).KJP1 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you need the phrase to enjoy the article, keep it, but people with less perfect memory don't remember the lead. How about header or image caption? Both places is a bit boring ;) - Generally: all my comments are only suggestions. When I am sure I edit the article. When I am wrong doing that, you just revert. Past midnight, that's it for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, all, I may have jumped the gun a bit here. Being new to this I am very unclear about the etiquette and it maybe should have got more discussion before I got my big welly boots into it! why don't you have a go at putting it back into some setup that might satisfy all, reverting me as much as you like, and see what emerges? I'm up to my eyes in it at work so I won't exactly be glowering over your shoulder every 30 minutes! Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, my apologies. Just me being grumpy after a terrible day spent mostly on the M6! It's no big deal, but I'll play around with it a bit. KJP1 (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are amazing! Putting "apologies, no big deal, play around" all in one short line! I'd know a few users who might profit from using just one of these occasionally ;) - I am busy today, don't fear more comments for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gerda - reflecting on this further, I think you have a point. It probably isn't clear to any reader not steeped in the history of the house. So, I've gone back to DBK's suggestion, and replaced the infobox quote. KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Fairy palace
 * I wonder if we could have the architect's background - with a section header such as his name - before they meet.
 * ✅ - Done, by reordering, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The transition from difficult customer to " also art collection" comes abruptly, and I have no idea what that "also" refers to. Off to rehearsal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Done, by removal of the also, and reordering. KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Fairy returning ;)
 * Can you do me a favour? Repeat the "Magician" in the prose below where it's in the header and have the source there, not in the header?
 * ✅ - shouldn't now be necessary, I think. KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I miss "shooting" in the paragraph of that header.
 * ❌ - sorry, just don't get this? KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think what Gerda perhaps means (apologies if I've got this wrong) is that the header calls it a shooting box but the term is not used in the paragraph which follows, so it's like it's left danging a bit?? DBaK (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Clear now! What I should really do is link to the "Hunting lodge" section of the blue-link but I can't remember how to do that. KJP1 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had a go using hash-subhead. Any good? DBaK (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "reminiscing years later, in his old age, he remarked" leaves me guessing for a while, but perhaps it's just me.
 * ❌ - it was a response to an earlier comment from Harry, and I think it helps to know the "years later" was when Armstrong was an old man. Can we leave it? KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "the design of the large, and highly variegated, houses the Victorian wealthy craved", - I wouldn't need the commas, but ...
 * ✅ - no buts! Commas are gone. KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "in most views, (is composed) with memorable force" - sorry, that quote with the brackets reads awkward to me, with too much force. If it's another beloved feature of the lyrics, forget that immediately.
 * ✅ - Nothing lyrical about it! And I've tried to smooth it out. KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Cragside also acted as an enormous display case", - "also" referring to what?
 * ✅ - "Also"'s also gone. KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Heirs
 * For the sake of chronology, I'd put the 1910 selling of his paintings (which was mentioned earlier) here, but the experiments to his life.
 * ❌ - I've not done this one. We're a little light on the post-Armstong history, and I think the opening of the Electrical room, a very recent event, can be illustrated by a bit of history about what Lord A got up to there. KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Architecture
 * "thought the house" - how about "regarded the house as"?
 * ✅ - Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * and generally chose second-rate architects, rather than one of the first rank such as Shaw, as they tended to be more "pliant", allowing the clients to get their own way" - change the last two clauses?
 * ✅ - Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * please explain what Rhenish means here, - the link doesn't help. I was in the Villa Hügel several times, mostly with music.
 * It was intended to mean, in the styles of the Rhineland castles, but I can't find a more direct link. Happy to remove if you think it better? KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * same for Wagnerian, - the (long, featured) article about the composer helps in no way to grasp what these critics may mean, - better no link? That goes also for the image caption. - Listen to any Wagner overture (we had three for the opening of the Rheingau Musik Festival 2017: Lohengrin - Rienzi - Der fliegende Holländer, - all well constructed, more Villa Hügel than Cragside, I'd say.
 * ❌ - I think I'm going to have to leave the link here. Wagnerian is what Pevsner says. What he meant, at the risk of OR, was something like "having the enormous dramatic scale and intensity of a Wagner opera".(OE) While you, and others!, may disagree, it is what the, uber-reliable, source says. KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Having sought the views of another editor, again far more musically-literate than I, there's a clear view that the links from Wagnerian to Richard Wagner won't assist readers. So they're gone. KJP1 (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I liked everything afterwards, - good luck with future plans! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Gerda - Glad you liked it and thanks indeed for the comments. We shall see how it fares at FAC. KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for listening, thinking and changing. Go ahead, close, and delink Wagnerian, because you should not link from a quote ;) - Those who know what is meant will get it, and the others will not get with the link because the bio doesn't carry the "dramatic scale and intensity of a Wagner opera". My favourite Wagner link is Jahrhundertring, of course, with a dramatic scene that I saw on stage. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Closing the PR
Subject to a little follow-up on a couple of Gerda's comments, which DBaK or I will address, I think we are now ready to close. We are most grateful to all the reviewers, for their time and their thoughtful comments which have much improved the article. We shall now push on to FAC, where further comments would be similarly welcome! Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the resolution of the outstanding issue from Gerda leaves the way clear for DBK to close up here and push us on to FAC. Many thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this. See it at FAC no doubt. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, Not a problem at all. We shall let you know when it reaches FAC and would greatly appreciate your comments there. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)