Wikipedia:Peer review/St Donat's Castle/archive1

St Donat's Castle
. It's an interesting castle, with a rather unusual history, and I think it might make a suitable subject for FAC. Any and all comments will be very much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
I'll review the whole text later today, I hope, but for now I send you a preliminary comment on the Wodehouse quote. Your cited source is itself quoting another source that is, in turn, quoting the original. I have the original on my shelves (it is correctly quoted in all three articles) and I send you the bibliographical details so that you can, if you wish, cite at first hand rather than third. , page 57. I'd add it myself, but the advanced algebra of your referencing system defeats me.  Tim riley  talk    11:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Tim - Many thanks. The quote first hand would be a distinct improvement. No hurry with the full review, but if you do manage to do it today, I shall respond as promptly. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And now credited directly to P.G. KJP1 (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "the home of the Stradlings" – I might make this "the home of the Stradling family", lest people wonder briefly what a Stradling was.
 * ✅ Done.


 * The de Stradlings: 1300–1738
 * "Historical tradition records" – one might maintain that "tradition" and "records" are mutually exclusive.
 * ✅ Done, by removal of the first.
 * "Welshmens'…" – are we sure about the position of the possessive apostrophe?
 * ❌ It is the title as given in the source but shall check further.
 * "each promising the other their inheritance in the event of their death" – I accept that there are times when the singular "they" or "their" is necessary, but this isn't one of them. These are two men, and this should read, "each promising the other his inheritance in the event of his death".
 * ✅ Done, as suggested.
 * There is too much bandying of titles in this para: "Sir Thomas and Tyrwhitt ..., Sir Thomas was killed and Sir John inherited" – surnames, please.
 * ✅ Done, as suggested.


 * Decline and recovery: 1739–1925
 * "employing the noted Victorian architects George Frederick Bodley and Thomas Garner" – you appear to be confusing the terms "notorious" and "noted". Bodley was evidently a cantankerous old buzzard: he drove Giles Gilbert Scott almost to the point of resignation in the early days of the building of Liverpool Cathedral.
 * ❌ Not done! Your POV is showing. Ghastly old curmudgeon he may have been, but he was certainly noted. I got the new Hall biography at Christmas, a wonderful book.
 * Tee-hee!  Tim riley  talk    07:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Williams also assembled a significant collection – and what did it signify?
 * ✅ Done. Oh my - will I never learn?
 * "moving the village to a new location" – what village? First we've heard of it.
 * ✅ Done.
 * "having first culled the herd of deer that his father had reintroduced to the castle park, sold it to Richard Pennoyer" – sold what? The herd, the park or the castle?
 * ✅ Done - possibly the deer carcasses were included in the sale?


 * Citizen Kane's domain: 1925–1960
 * "Sir Charles had previously been knighted" – might be worth giving the year (1913 according to Who's Who) instead of "previously" which looks a bit odd.
 * ✅ Done, with a bit of rewording.
 * What has prompted you to link "United Kingdom"?
 * ✅ Done - stupidity!
 * "obsession,...romance" – not sure we need both a comma and the elliptical dots.
 * ✅ Done - I hope.
 * "Parliament" – I think I'd link to Parliament of the United Kingdom rather than to the Palace of Westminster.
 * ✅ Done.
 * "Joe and Rose" – as the article on Kennedy senior is titled "Joseph P. Kennedy Sr" I don't know that calling him "Joe" here is quite right.
 * ✅ Done - bloody impertinent of me.
 * "Hearst's mistress, the actress Marion Davies" – a bit late to link to Marion here if you're going to feature her earlier, in the Wodehouse quote.
 * ✅ Done, by moving up.
 * "An opinion ... was sought from the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, a noted solicitor" – as (I presume) the opinion was sought in the Rt Hon gent's business capacity rather than as Deputy Speaker of the Commons I think it would be better just to say "Sir Thieving Rogue, MP, a noted solicitor".
 * ❌ - Not Done, yet. First find the name of the Deputy Speaker.
 * ✅ - Done - now found, and he has a Wiki entry.
 * I seem to have started a hare running - sorry! If this Davison is the right bloke he wasn't a solicitor: he was a barrister. You could duck the question by just calling him a prominent lawyer.  Tim riley  talk    07:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It gets worse! Davison is not the right bloke. Should have checked my sources more carefully. But he does have a link. KJP1 (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Even Billy Butlin, the holiday-camp entrepreneur, was uninterested" – why "even"? Was Butlin famous for buying such houses?
 * ✅ Done.


 * United World Colleges: 1960–2018
 * You have included the "Sir" in the piping (rightly, in my view) for Sir Charles Allom, earlier, but not for Sir Antonin Besse here.
 * ✅ Done.
 * "16–19 year old students" – I think I'd punctuate this as "16–19-year-old students".
 * ✅ Done.


 * Architecture and description
 * "Cadw's listing is certain" – whoever drew the listing up may have been certain, but I don't think a listing, being inanimate, has the capacity for certainty.
 * ✅ Done.
 * "undergo significant alteration" – signifying what?
 * ✅ Done. Not again!
 * "a French chateau in Beauvais" – what other sort of château might one expect in Beauvais? And I don't think "château" is sufficiently absorbed into English to lose its circumflex.
 * ✅ Done and done.
 * "Hearst's breakfast Room, of the Banqueting hall" – "off" rather than "of"? And the capitalisation is a bit random here.
 * ✅ Done and done.
 * "a foundation patronised by many members of the Welsh gentry" – do you mean they went there ("Mr Jones of Jesus") or gave it generous donations?
 * ❌ Not done - both I think. Will ponder how to better express this.
 * "festivals and live events" – aren't festivals usually live events?
 * ✅ Done - they are indeed.
 * "some 22km distant" – in the lead we had English measurements with metric in brackets.
 * ✅ Done - or will be when I've worked out how.
 * "Ruinous by the 20th century, Hearst" – I don't think you actually mean that Hearst was ruinous.
 * ✅ Done, indeed I didn't.

That's all from me. A most enjoyable and informative article. I had no idea that Hearst owned a property here. Who'd have thought it? A powerful American vulgarian buying property in a Celtic part of Britain!  Tim riley  talk    15:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - Greatly appreciated. And most beneficial, as always. Shall attend to the comments forthwith. Glad you liked it. It is a surprising story. I first became aware of it some years before I had a connection with AC. I walked into the bar of the Old Swan in Llantwit and was staggered to see a set of photos of Hearst, Chaplin, JFK et. al., all taken in the bar! Not really expected in a little village pub in South Wales. All the best and I shall nudge you as and when this trundles to FAC. KJP1 (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks indeed. Just got a few that I need to dig a bit harder for. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceoil

 * Can we mention the actual dates rather than hint re With a history of occupation extending over 700 years.
 * ✅ Done - I think.


 * Similarly with for some four hundred years
 * ✅ Done, as above.


 * Not sure about "the uncashed cheque remains at St Donat"; a bit knowing when all it means is that the transaction was given a nominal value for legal purposes when the debts passed hands.
 * ✅ Not done yet. What I'm trying to get across here, and obviously failing!, was that Hoare's sale of the patent for a pound, in a cheque he never cashed, was actually an act of great generosity. It's something the college has occasionally regretted, as they could have made very large sums of money from it. I'll see if I can reword.
 * Have now reworded and put in a BBC source that indicates the College could be earning £15M a year from the patent if Hoare had been more commercially focussed. Some generosity! Hope this works. KJP1 (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The lead image caption, "an exceptionally fine medieval castle"[1] unfairly gives the opening impression of POV. I would prefer it to be more purely descriptive.
 * ❌ Not sure about this one. It's a direct quote from the CADW listing, indeed it's the designation strapline. I'll mull it over.
 * Ok, but the all lowercase was why it caught my eye. Even if a direct quote, opening this way looks a bit strange. Its not a very illuminating insight either, so maybe could be swapped out. Ceoil (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * In total, his time at St Donat's amounted to some four months - But we said he spent just one night there before hurrying off. Maybe, his "involvement" or "interest"?
 * ✅ Done - Ah, but then he came back, for five visits in total between 1925-1336. Have reworded.


 * the largest newspaper and magazine company in the world - should be a blue link here.
 * ✅ Done.


 * With a history of occupation extending from the late 13th century to the present, a period of over 700 years, - mixed tense, while most that have found themselves reading this page probably can probably subtract and "a period of over 700 years" is redundant . Ceoil (talk)
 * ✅ - Done, by removal.


 * These are quibbles, matter of tightening up, very much engaged with this fine and very interesting article; reading through, but will be a week before I fully read through KJP1. Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * - Delighted to see you here and take whatever time you need. Given how long it took me to amble round The Cloisters, I can hardly complain! In the meantime, I shall address the above. KJP1 (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * KJP1, all changes to my satisfaction! More to follow as I say. 18:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from DBak

 * I was thrilled to be invited to look at this but I fear I am doing a rubbish job (teacher on holiday, brain turned to standby) so I'm just pootling round the edges griping about commas in an annoying way and I'm doing that by just editing directly rather than proper grown-up discussion here. I might get round to some of the latter but please don't hold your breath.
 * That said, I do think it's a great article. I had no idea, and it has been fascinating.
 * The only thing I'm wondering at the moment is if there is any way, without indulging in OR or outrageous levels of snark, of pointing out that Hearst's "Want buy castle in England" doesn't reflect that great an understanding of what, or where, he was getting into? Maybe it doesn't matter that much, and I do understand that Countries of the British Isles is at times a right old confusatron for more people than the charming Mr Hearst ... but it did make me clutch my head and moan a bit, and I was tempted to wonder if we can share the joy with the reader ... hmm, dunno.
 * ❌ Hmm indeed. I get the point but am unsure how to address it. The telegram said "England" and, while Hearst certainly knew he was buying in Wales, I don't think the distinction mattered much to him - though it certainly might to others! Not sure how to address.
 * Would a "sic" be too snarky?
 * - No, I like that. I'll put it in and we can see how it fares. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Because I am doing this in stupidly piecemeal way, here's a spare line so I can separate my sig.
 * In the sentence Its restoration began in 1852 when it was purchased by John Whitlock Nicholl Carne, and through the efforts of the subsequent owner, the coal magnate, Morgan Stuart Williams. are we absolutely sure that that last comma, between magnate and Morgan, is doing a good job? I think it reads a little haltingly and perhaps makes it sound like there was only one; remove it and the sentence flows better.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Has something gone a bit wrong here? Hearst employed Sir Charles Allom as his architect and designer, [24], a noted designer and decorated knighted in 1913 for his redecoration of Buckingham Palace.[25] - the sentence doesn't quite flow and "decorated knighted" is perhaps an error.
 * ✅ - Done. My error when attempting to address one of Tim's comments.


 * Was Hearst lit up here? Having undertaken a tour of the grounds when illuminated by kerosene lamps, he left the following morning to board the Berengaria for New York. ... or is it just me? Obviously a bright chap.
 * ✅ - Done. No, he wasn't!


 * Under the section head United World Colleges: 1960–2018 we have this: Hearst died in August 1951 and for the following decade the castle remained on the market. It feels like a bit of a jump, because in the previous section we say St Donat's was put up for sale in 1937 - are we implying that it was continuously on the market 1937 – 1961? Maybe we are and it's fine, but it just gave me a slight feeling of whiplash from the timey-wimey acceleration ... did we Jump over something? Is some minor clarification possible, please?
 * ✅ - Done. Have tried to clarify with a "finally". It was indeed on the market from 1937-1960, although I doubt they did much marketing during the war.


 * I see what this means: With its residential contingent of international students, the castle has been described as the oldest continuously inhabited castle in Wales but it comes across as a bit of a non-sequitur - they are only one element of that continuous use, so why single them out? ... at the same time we can't list in this sentence everyone who has loved there. I can't quite see how to fix this and I know how we all hate people who bring problems without solutions ...
 * ✅ - Done. By removal. Although I like the idea of listing everyone who has loved there.
 * Ooops, haha! Bl**dy students ... :)


 * I've shut up now for a bit! DBaK (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are now inconsistent on big numbers - 400 vs. four hundred, an ting. This is partly my fault for fiddling with it ... should we be consistent and if so on what basis? DBaK (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A very good point. I'm sure there's MoS guidance on this and I shall go and look for it.KJP1 (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style - so, I think this is saying that four hundred can be that, or 400, but we should be consistent. However, four-hundred and fifty should be 450. I shall go through and amend as appropriate. I prefer four hundred. KJP1 (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

- Great to hear from you and the input is very much appreciated. And glad you found it interesting. The castle, nestled in its little corner of the Vale, does have a rather extraordinary story. Shall address the above tomorrow, but now off for a bath and I’ve found taking the iPad in runs a certain amount of risk. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Apostrophe nitpick
I'm sorry to keep waffling on but can we please get one thing really clear, as it will surely come back and bite us at FAC otherwise. Is the rule supposed to be that the castle and church are always St Donat's and the village is St Donats? That's certainly how it looks to me, but a check for consistency will throw up a couple that may need looking at carefully. And what about the Arts Centre? We have given it an apostrophe but its own website seems less sure. I know this is a thorny problem and can throw up silliness on- and off-wiki but I do wonder if we can get it as clear as possible here? I don't want to start correcting things if I'm actually barking up the wrong tree ... Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem and certainly an issue. I think you're right in that the village is St Donats, and things associated with the village, i.e. the X at/of St Donats, are St Donat's. But I very much doubt there's anything like consistency in the wider world and on the wider web. I think the best we can do is aim for consistency within the article, on the line you've set out. Which would see the Arts Centre have an apostrophe. Are there any more that need changing? KJP1 (talk)
 * I think I saw a couple that would break the rule, yes. I will have another look and see if I turn any up. I must add that I am not even sure about the Arts Centre: on their website they seem not to use the apostrophe, so perhaps they see themselves as the arts centre of the community more than the castle ... or they can't be bothered perhaps! At two official websites, here and here, they omit the apostrophe, but their Facebook page here has them like a rash. Perhaps I should get out more? DBaK (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Addendum - I checked them all (both ways) and changed two, leaving the Arts Centre well alone! Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

And finally - I think there's a mild consistency issue in a couple of places where you use, say, "late-15th" as an adjective preceding the noun "century". You usually have a hyphen, but not always. Note that I'm not talking about "15th-century" preceding another noun, like '15th-century motorbike" - that's fine I think. It's just where "century" is the noun - in some of those I think you need to check for the hyphen. I think! Cheers DBaK (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat
Very nicely put together and very readable. I'm on a mobile in rural Dorset with very poor wifi, so this will have to be drip fed:
 * Lead
 * You link Stradling baronets on the second occurrence (para two), rather than the first (para one)
 * ✅ - Done.


 * We have "the early 19th century it was only partly habitable. In the twentieth century", which should be standardised; we also have "the late 13th century" and "By the mid-19th century", so the hyphenation should be looked at too.
 * Will go through these.
 * ✅ - hoping I've caught these now but probably haven't.


 * Stradlings
 * "Sir Peter, his wife, and her second husband John de Pembridge, extended the castle": sounds on first reading like there was some form of ménage going on! May be worth adding a "later" to clarify the two husbands didn't overlap.
 * ✅ - Done. What a suggestion!


 * I'm not sure of the rationale behind the capitalisation in "magistrates, members of parliament, Sheriffs and Deputy Lieutenants"
 * ✅ - Done.

More soon. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks indeed and glad you liked it. But don't go spoiling your break far from the madding crowd. Are you anywhere near this place, Athelhampton Manor? It's where they filmed the original Sleuth, with Caine and Olivier, and is rather interesting. No hurry on this, although I'm glad you enjoyed it. Best. KJP1 (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Lying in bed on Portland with a chest infection at the moment, so I'm not interrupting much! If I improve before I'm due to go back I'll try and get to Athelhampton – Sleuth was a very enjoyable film I last saw when TR and I did the Olivier article. – SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Continuing...


 * Lead
 * (the century comment above was added a bit later)
 * Will check these.
 * ✅ - and now done, I hope.


 * "the Hearst Corporation continued its efforts to sell it": continued? That's the first mention of selling
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Stradlings
 * "The scholar Edward Stradling (1528/29–1609)" should probably be "The scholar Edward Stradling (1528/29–1609)"
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Decline
 * "Almost all of Bodley and Garner's work was eradicated in the "brutal" remodelling undertaken by Hearst". This later owner threw me for a bit, as did the surname on first mention in the body. Perhaps "Almost all of Bodley and Garner's work was eradicated in the "brutal" remodelling later undertaken by William Randolph Hearst.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * "to Richard Pennoyer, an American, in 1922. I think the lead's description of "Richard Pennoyer, an American diplomat" would work better.
 * ✅ - Done. Given him both his profession and his wife!

Done down to architecture. More to follow later. – SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

After a slight bed-ridden delay...


 * Architecture
 * "Portcullis Room". Not sure on the capitalisation here
 * ✅ - Done.


 * "about 40 m across" Should we also have an imperial equivalent?
 * ✅ - Done.


 * "early-14th-century": the hyphenation is different elsewhere in this section
 * ✅ - Done.


 * You have (dotted throughout) "northwestern range", "western range", "West Range", "north range" and "North Range"
 * ✅ - Done, I hope!
 * "Plate armour": caps?
 * ✅ - Done.


 * "In 1978–1981": "Between 1978 and 1981"?
 * ✅ - Done.

More generally, it may be worth putting in the text when the castle (and gardens) were listed at Grade I and II, if you think it worth it. Finally there are a couple of refs that are out of order (e.g. "Hampton Court.[78][70]), but worth going through to see if there are any more. (I care not one iota on the point, but there are those that do at FAC!)
 * Will do.

Very interesting, as always, and a pleasure to read. Please ping me if there is anything unclear, and when you go to FAC. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - SchroCat, many thanks indeed and glad you found it of interest. Have incorporated all suggestions and will ping you at FAC. Hope you're feeling better. KJP1 (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

A very brief comment from BB
I'm saving my main fire for the FAC, as I haven't found time to give the article a careful reading at this point. However, could you please tweak the opoening sentence of the second lead paragraph, which at present reads rather clumsily: "The present castle's origins date from the 1300s, when Peter de Stradling (or de Stratelinges) developed the castle." Something not quite right there. Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - oops, it does rather! Will revise. One less thing for FAC. Many thanks and all best wishes. Hope you are faring well. KJP1 (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Closing
Now closing up. The input has been extremely helpful and the article's much improved, for which many thanks to all. Will move to FAC, and be round with the begging bowl for comments as soon as TR's got me a page number or two. KJP1 (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)