Wikipedia:Peer review/Edmund Sharpe/archive1

Edmund Sharpe
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I should like to submit it at FAC. The main source is a self-published work, but this should not be a problem because it is highly detailed, scholarly, and IMO reliable. I have given details of the credentials of its author on the talk page.

Thanks, Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added a bit on how his scheme for Gothic architecture differed from Rickman's. For FAC I would expect more on this. The linking seems to fall off towards the end - eg when he moves abroad. Was he "conservative" or "Conservative/Tory"?  More analysis of a couple of typical churches would be welcome. Were all his churches C of E? He seems to have had relatively Low Church views, something of a contrast with many Gothic Revivalists, something that might be mentioned.  Can anything of his personality be detected beneath Victorian politeness?  The main source would ideally be supplemented by parallel refs to other, if shorter sources. I'm ok with it, but others might not be.  Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Most enjoyable and soothing; what could be nicer than earning one's living designing churches and writing about their architecture? The following is the first half of my review, mainly concentrating on prose because I have no expertise to bring to the table.
 * General prose point: there are some overlong sentences, e.g. in lead: "He started his career as an architect in Lancashire in 1835, initially on his own, then from 1845 in partnership with Edward Paley, mainly designing churches but also some secular buildings, including work on domestic properties and schools." Look for others, and try to avoid.
 * Dealt with that one; will look for others
 * Also ther is a tendency towards overdetailing and some unnecessary wordiness in places. A particular example is in the last two sentences of the first "Early life" paragraph. Stripped to the essential information these could become: "In November 1823 his father died suddenly, aged 48,[6] and in the following April his mother moved the family to Lancaster,[7] where  Martha  resumed her teaching career."[8] Does more than this need to be said?
 * Fixed
 * In the same section, "probably Hallwood Academy, close to the village of Halton" seems hardly necessary.
 * Deleted
 * Some awkwardness in the phrasing: "Francis Sharpe then worked both as a farmer and as a music teacher, including teaching at a school in Runcorn". It's the "...ing ..ing" that's the main problem, though I wonder whether the reference to the Runcorn school is actually necessary?
 * No, it's gone.
 * What did Sharpe read at Cambridge? Also, a quibble, but one does not "graduate" MA at Cambridge (see here for a summary of how the system works.
 * Not sure. Did they have specific subjects in those days, or was it a common curriculum?  I'll enquire. MA admission clarified.
 * What was a "Worts Travelling Fellowship"? Who awarded it?
 * Added, plus a footnote to say what it is.
 * Lancaster practice: Surely Paley became Sharpe's partner rather than his "successor"? Is it necessary to includ the information that relates to the practice after Sharpe left it?
 * Paley was both, but partner first; changed. I've retained the rest because Austin has already been mentioned, and Henry was related to Sharpe.
 * Re Immanuel Church, you say this was "built in 1835–36 to the design of his cousin", which seems clear, but then "The evidence is conflicting as to whether Sharpe either made or amended the design" which obscures the issue somewhat. Can you perhaps rephrase/clarify?
 * Clarified.
 * "Two major influences on the Gothic Revival were A. W. N. Pugin (1812–52) and the Cambridge Camden Society". This statement might be better placed in the preceding paragraph, which introduces the Gothis revival. As it is, it seems somewhat isolated.
 * Who describes Sharpe's early works as "pre-archaeological"?
 * I agree this was unclear. I've re-written it in parts, and explained the term "pre-archaeological".
 * "brother of his future wife Elizabeth" → "his future brother-in-law"?
 * Fixed
 * "Towards the end of his life, Sharpe designed one more church incorporating this material" - presumably terracotta, but this needs to be made clear.
 * Done.
 * Sharpe was an architect, but: "...he built a bridge over the River Hyndburn at Fournessford" Did he actually "build" it, or design it (and maybe supervise the building)? The impression that he built these structures himself is increased by phrasing such as "he added several wings and a chapel; nearby he made extensions to the Union Workhouse." The wording here and elsewhere needs to clarify his precise role - architect, builder, site foreman etc.
 * I think I've "got" them all.
 * "Arichitectural historian": the grammar goes awry at the end of the first paragraph. My suggestion: "The work, which was praised by John Ruskin in The Stones of Venice, consisted largely of drawings by Sharpe's pupils—Paley, Austin, and R. J. Withers—with text by Sharpe describing and analysing the tracery of Gothic windows."
 * Done.

I'll try and have the rest done in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the initial comments; I'll work on them. From what you have said (or not said) can I presume that you do not perceive any major obstacles in working the article towards FA — such matters as the general layout, sections, images, etc.? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at dealing with the points above; anything outstanding there? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the rest:
 * Of the "six expeditions" those in England, though stated as being in different areas, are all in fact within the same small prt of the country – indeed, all within a radius of about 40 miles from where I live (Stamford). Was there a reason why Sharpe concentrated his researches in this particular region?
 * No idea; I'll ask Hughes.
 * The mention of Sharpe's death and the published memorial would be better placed at the end of the section.
 * "During the time that" → "While..."
 * Both done.
 * Railway developer, England second paragraph: Can you clarify what was actually built?
 * Not clear to me either; I'll try to clarify.
 * "About this time too..." Zap the word "too"
 * Another overelaborate sentence: "In May 1842 Sharpe had been elected a Port Commissioner, and subsequently suggested the Morecambe Bay Harbour Project, proposing to build a new port at Poulton-le-Sands (soon to become part of Morecambe), and linking it to Lancaster by means of a ship canal." At least two sentences there.
 * Both done.
 * "He also awarded himself the contract for building the harbour." Sounds a bit like Poo-Bah; can this be phrased so as to distinguish between his corporate capacities?
 * Done
 * "for a while" is a little indeterminate for an encyclopedia article. Tighten up?
 * You have "In August 1863" followed by a comma. This is not normal BritEng usage, and you have not adopted this form elsewhere as far as I can see, so I suggest you drop it.
 * Last 2 dealt with.
 * "..joining the local Heart of Oak Club in 1837" → "and had joined the local Heart of Oak Club in 1837" Can you explain the nature of this club with an appropriate adjective ("patriotic", "traditionalist", etc?)
 * Small expansion to explain.
 * "These appointments gave him opportunity to observe the unsatisfactory state of sanitation of the town, and the determination to do something to improve it." Suggest rephrase/simplify: "Through these offices he became aware of the unsatisfactory state of sanitation in the town, and resolved to do something to improve it."
 * Fixed.
 * "it was described as..." Who described it thus?
 * Cannot find a clear source; probably redundant, so deleted.
 * "...owing to conflicts of interest there was constant friction between the [police] commission and the town council, the former tending to block any necessary reforms on grounds of cost to the ratepayers." How did the police commission come to be the guardian of ratepayers' interests?
 * Rephrased to clarify.
 * "A campaign was initiated in 1847 by two Lancaster doctors, Thomas Howitt and Edward Denis de Vitre, and they were soon joined by Sharpe who drew extensively on his experience of having accompanied Professor Richard Owen (born and educated in Lancaster) on his tour of inspection of the town in 1844, the report of which was published the following year". Length and complexity issues - there is a similar problem with the sentence beginning "Though agreeing in principle..."
 * "...and published another report" → "and published a further report" (to avoid repetition)
 * Both dealt with.
 * Some of the information in the "Personal" section has been mentioned earlier, e.g. the move to Geneva, and could be abbreviated, for example: "In Geneva the family lived for about three years in "Richemont", a rented property on the road  to Chêne-Bougeries."
 * Done.
 * I am not sure that the "other interests" deserve such a lengthy section. Some of these interests (cricket, singing etc) are pretty marginal; I think the first two paragraphs could be condensed into a single sentence noting that Sharpe followed a number of sporting and cultural interests.
 * Some tightening; not too much because these are further factors in his being described a "Renaissance" man,
 * Appraisal: suggest delete the word "Yet" from beginning of second paragraph, and "...Hughes considers Sharpe..."
 * Done.
 * "He was also considered by some to have been an early pioneer of the Gothic Revival,[H] though this was "probably more for his books than for his buildings". Whose words are the quote? And "considered by some" is always risky; people might tag
 * First point clarified; second point: I give an example in a footnote.

That's all my specific remarks. I don't think this is far away from being a FAC (I have seen lesser articles promoted) though I would ecommend a little more prose combing for wordiness, relevance, repetitions etc, as I have not carried out a line-by-line prose examination. The general structure of the article looks good, and coverage seems comprehensive (almost too much so in place). I have noted what you say on the talkpage about the main source, and I think ths is fine. Please drop me a line when if/when you decide to take it to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks again. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)