Wikipedia:Peer review/Ham House/archive1

Ham House


I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been significantly expanded over the last year to include much more info about the house and its collection, as well as updating the family history with more-recent research. Guidance on what else is needed to achieve a higher quality rating (GA) is greatly appreciated

Thanks, Isaksenk (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh.Singh
Hi @: I am not an expert on this topic, so consider my comments just as some general suggestions. Just mention whether you plan to nominate it for GA, A class or FA?
 * Considering the length of article (49767 characters), you should consider expanding the lead section, which is currently only 1 paragraph (1044 characters). Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, the lead for articles above 30,000 characters is advised to be 3-4 paragraphs.
 * Some paragraphs in the article are either partially un-sourced or based on a single source. The paragraph As Duchess and consort to a very ....... kept her tea secure in a “Japan box” in her adjoining Private Closet. is based on a single reference. It is always advisable for article to have various in-line citations, especially for claims that are likely to be challenged. The entire article has 35 references, which may be less considering the length of article.
 * Consider using other books like this or find others here.
 * Always advisable to add Alt Text to images.
 * The reference "Pritchard 2007", "Rowell, Christopher" and all other sources which are books cited in "Further reading" should be cited as a Short Foot note as
 * The authors of books cited in "Further reading" section need Wikipedia links (for those who have a WP Page) and should sort alphabetically by Author's last name.
 * ISBN numbers should be added to cited books. Try using this site
 * Ham House A Guide – 9780000001719
 * The Furnishing and Decoration of Ham House – 9780903335034
 * Overall very nice article, and your efforts are very much appreciated. I leave the grammatical check and other things which I left to some another user. If you feel that the article needs some copy-editing or needs to be more neutral, consider requesting it to be Copy-edited at WP:GOCE/REQ. Thanks a lot!! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
Can't think how I've overlooked this PR. I'll be back tomorrow or thereabouts after a thorough read-through.  Tim riley  talk   18:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments on the History sections: You are very fond of the word "significant", seemingly as a posh synonym for "big", "major" or "important". It is a pity to water down the sense of a useful word: if you ask yourself "what did it signify?" before using it, you will find it popping up less often. What, for instance, did the "significant repairs … to the roof" signify?
 * General.
 * Detailed comments:
 * James' second son – unusual form of possessive: James's would be the usual form, as seen in the king's own article.
 * Charles, several years prior to his coronation – Fowler is very severe on "prior to" used when "before" is meant. It doesn't bother me much, but if in doubt it's prudent to follow Fowler, in my experience.
 * commence improvements – Fowler is fairly rude about people who use "commence" instead of a plain English "begin" or "start"
 * Murray was predominantly exiled in France. This looks a bit odd. Does it mean he was exiled most of the time?
 * Between 1649 and 1661, Elizabeth bore eleven children, five of whom survived to adulthood … jointure on their marriage. – This is an entire paragraph (of nearly 200 words) without a single citation. Much the same goes for the second half of the next paragraph: They became much closer … the family remained close to the heart of court intrigue.
 * Elizabeth appears to have changed her mind as the rooms were being built – just a small point: I had to read this twice, because at first I read "as" as meaning "because". You could avoid this fleeting ambiguity by writing "while" instead of "as".
 * One of the reasons may have been because – the general form is "the reason is that ...", not "the reason is because '...".
 * according to their rank or significance in society, so being entertained – "so" is not used as a conjunction in good formal writing, though it's fine in everyday speech: you want an "and" or else (crisper) a colon instead of the comma and "so".
 * Upstairs the existing State Apartments … through one room to get to another. – Another paragraph with no citations. And some people get sniffy about "personal friend", asking what other kind you can have. I don't know that I agree with them, but I mention it for your consideration.
 * Elizabeth Maitland continued to live at Ham House until her death in 1698. – An uncited statement like this sticks out at the end of a paragraph
 * death of Elizabeth, so in 1730 – another "so" doing duty as a conjunction.
 * Of their sixteen children – it’s a couple of paras since we met the earl and countess, and it isn't immediately obvious who "their" refers to.
 * Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart … Thames at Strawberry Hill. Another whole paragraph without any citation.
 * The 5th Earl seems to have been … and the sunburst chairs in the White Closet. And another citation-free para.
 * Wilbraham was aged 60 … childless, in 1821, aged 82. Does citation [9] adequately support every statement in this paragraph?
 * Louisa's eldest son, William, had predeceased her … who had to pay a sum of £70,000 to avoid forfeiting much of the Ham estate. – Another para without any citations.
 * a visit to Ham House in 1879 describing the dilapidation – I think most people would expect a comma after 1879.
 * published her 570 page book – I'd hyphenate "570-page"
 * "On 23 September 1899 … grandfather's will." "By the early 1900s … wave machine." "The 9th Earl travelled widely … last Earl of Dysart to live at the house." – three paras in succession with no citations.
 * Thought for some time to have been lost, many papers were subsequently recovered from the Ham House stables in 1953, though many were in poor condition as a result. – As a result of what?

With so many paragraphs lacking citations the article hasn't a chance at GAN or FAC as it stands. If you put that right, there doesn't seem much else wrong, so far as the History section is concerned. The few drafting points, above, don't add up to much, and I think you have the right level of detail throughout – full but not excessive. I'll hold off commenting on the later sections of the article for now, to give you time to sort out the citations.  Tim riley  talk   07:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Response from isaksenk
Hi @ and @ - just wanted to thank you both for taking the time to review this page. On behalf of the team of HH volunteers whom I represent, we really appreciate your advice to improve the quality of the work. We recognise that citations are key and are working to incorporate those into the text. One question - the Rowell book was the primary source of our efforts, as it represents the latest in academic-level research on the house and collections. We recognise it's always best to rely on a range of sources but in this case, Rowell is considered the gold standard at present. Would a seeming over-reliance on one source hamper the ability to achieve a higher article rating? Appreciate your insight here, thanks.
 * Hi @ Most of the FA's I have seen have various range of sources. Using primary sources isn't that big issue, but when a major part of article relies on a single source, you may find it difficult to convince the reviewers that the article is "well-researched" or has "high-quality reliable sources". There are various other sources too, that can be consulted. I found some Journals/articles on JSTOR, which you may access from WP:TWL or request them here.


 * FRENCH FURNITURE MAKERS AT HAM HOUSE
 * The Furnishing and Decoration of Ham House
 * Furniture from the Netherlands at Ham House
 * SOME NEO-CAROLEAN ARMCHAIRS AT HAM HOUSE


 * I still think that this article is well researched, but lacks inline citations. And of-course @ could definitely advise better than me. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

To add my two-penn'orth about Rowell (or I suppose my four-pennorth as I'm having two goes): first, you can't just cite the whole book as you have at refs 1 a-z: each citation needs a page number so that anyone wanting to do so can compare what you have written with what the source says. The same goes for all the other books – Pritchard, the NT book etc – to which you have multiple citations. Secondly, reliance on a single major source tends to raise eyebrows but I don't think you'll be accused of that, with several other sources cited extensively, though such extra sources as Kavyansh Singh suggests are all to the good. I'd just add (making it my six-penn'orth) that Further reading should contain only books you don't refer to in your main text. (And if they're not worth referring to in the text why are they listed at all, my Wikipedia mentor used to ask.) The books you use as sources should have their bibliographical details in the main references section or (I think preferably, though others don't) in their own "Sources" section: see here for a top-class example of citation and bibliography, and indeed of everything else.  Tim riley  talk   10:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments from Tim

Placeholder from KJP1
I have also missed this, for which apologies. First off, it is an excellent, and detailed, article. Congratulations to all who have worked on it. With Featured Article status your aim, the obvious immediate weakness is the lack of citations, as editors above have already pointed out. Wholly uncited paragraphs, or those with a single cite at the end, will very likely cause problems. And there are a wider range of sources available. Rowell’s is indeed a superb, and gorgeous, study and it is about the most recent work. But as a major work of architecture, there are many other works which cover Ham. The HE listing is oddly brief, but Pevsner has a full entry and I’m sure I can find multiple references in other works on my shelves. RL is busy just now, but give me a while and I shall see what else I can find. I’ll also seek the views of a couple of other editors who both have great experience with architecture articles. The other immediately obvious gap is the absence of a house plan. The best draughtsman for these that I know is sadly retired, but there may be other ways forward. In the meantime, good luck with it, and PEPPER IT WITH CITES! KJP1 (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * p.s. All those embedded links to IMDb in the Media section will need to go, and each will need a proper cite. If it were up to me, I’d blitz the lot but I appreciate many editors/readers value these Media appearances sections. KJP1 (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * p.p.s - You also have a mix of citation styles; e.g. Ref.28,, and Ref.29. You need to decide on one or the other. I’d definitely use sfn but others would strongly disagree. KJP1 (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Response from isaksenk
Thanks @KJP1 I really do appreciate the time you've taken to read & advise! As you can see I'm slowly working to sort out the references, but with only a scattered hour or so after work in the evenings, it's a bit slow. :-) I've wrestled all the Rowell references into good order, and my next steps are as follows:
 * Sort out the Pritchard references - more difficult as they were in place before our team started working on this article. I don't have a copy (and can't get hold of one locally in Richmond) so I'll be heading to the British Library next Saturday to spend the soggy day in the Reading Rooms.
 * Add references for all the content without citation at present, using a more-diverse range of sources
 * Get all the reference into sfn format (which includes figuring out how to do that for things which aren't books)
 * Copy-edit the text for readability and consistency

So, bear with my sloth-like pace, and do send more advice as you see fit - thanks!
 * - First off - no worries at all on the pace. The beauty of Wikipedia is that there are generally no deadlines. Second, might be worth giving the British Library a ring. When I was there last week, they will still only doing visits by pre-arranged appointment. Third, are you okay if I do a few bits myself? I'll leave edit summaries so you can see what I've done, and revert should you wish. Lastly, do you have the 2002 Pevsner/Cherry for South London? I can easily copy and email you the pages (which will be very useful) if you don't. Just mail me through Wiki and I'll respond with the copies. Alternatively, I can just fillet the Pevsner and put suitable refs. in myself, if you’re ok with this. Don't forget to sign your posts! All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do go ahead and edit at will! And yes - I've got my desk booked at the BL next weekend, but would love to have a peek at Pevsner/Cherry. I'll ping you via email now. Thanks! Isaksenk (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK - I think most of the sfn'ing is done. However, the current Ref.36 comes from Pritchard's Ham House and its owners through five centuries 1610–2006, and should be sfn'd with the others when you've had a chance to review next weekend. You should now have the Pevsner. KJP1 (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The other one that needs sorting is Ref.3, the 2009 NT Guide. I am assuming this is actually the 2005 Revised Edition, written by Rowell? (and others?), rather than the Maurice Tomlin 1982 guide, which is the only one I have. Do you have it? It would be good to give it an author and sfn it. KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Holy cow - thanks! Really appreciate all that effort! So - regarding ref 3, yes I do have the book, but sadly, there's no single named author, or even an editor. Rowell did Ch. 1, but other authors are mentioned for the rest of the book. Also - I'm trying to fix the first citation using this format harvid|NT|2009 (with double brackets on both sides) but it's rendering as "CITREFNT2009". Any idea how I can fix that? I copied it directly from the sfn help pages...and thanks again! Isaksenk (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve a different issue with the very first cite. I left it in the lead as it’s a quote, but I can’t actually find the quote in the link. KJP1 (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean. That quote and reference were in place before we started working on the article. I'm tempted to replace it with "an unusually complete survival of the 17th century that impressed in its day and continues to do so today" which can be found on that archived page. Isaksenk (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

National Trust Collection
This one, currently Ref. 43, also needs work. It currently links to the entry page for the NT Collection, which is enormous. It really needs to go to the relevant page of the individual item, as I've done for Ref.42, the Countess portrait. Otherwise readers have to do their own searches, which isn't really on! I shall attempt the others if I have time. KJP1 (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Update from isaksenk
Hello @, @ and @, I've spent this month working on all of your kind feedback, alongside the improvements you have made. The referencing has been bolstered, and I have also tried to streamline the language and punctuation for readability. I'd value any feedback you might offer on whether I need to do more in any of those areas, or if I should focus my efforts on some other aspect of the article. Appreciate your experience and insight. Thanks Isaksenk (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)