Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cullen House/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2021 [1].

Cullen House

Nominator(s): Girth Summit _(blether) 14:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a historic building in Scotland, built around 1600 and substantially enlarged and remodelled several times in its history, and family seat to the Earls of Seafield. I started it back in 2019 as a userspace draft, but didn't move it into mainspace until April 2020 and got it up to GA. I've done a bit more work on it this year, and have taken it through peer review - I think it's about as good as I can make it now, so thought I'd see whether it's up to FA standards. Thanks in advance for any reviews. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Image licensing looks good. The one thing I would recommend, if possible, is finding a better quality image of the house to use as the lead image. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for this Buidhe. I've searched for licensed images on commons and on geograph.org, but have drawn a blank. Do you know any other good places to turn to? Girth Summit _(blether) 07:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I had a little go at the image, as I can't travel there and take a new photo. I've enlarged, sharpened, brightened and straightened it a little (it won't take much intervention without looking terrible). The changes take a while to filter through but it you are sure you are seeing the new version you may prefer it. If you hate it please revert it over at Commons and you can get the original back. Please note that this is not meant to be permanent – just a stopgap to help out until a seriously better image can be found. Hope this helps, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from DBak

Having had my minor moans (see below) very usefully answered, I am happy to support this excellent article. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor moans about repetition – and I am not sure how or whether they can be fixed! Don't you hate people who do this? Sorry! Firstly there's a little patch of repetition of Baronialized, three in a row I think, and a little later we say separately designated as a Category A listed building or words to that effect several times in a row. I absolutely get it that these are correct and descriptive, and I am not arguing with their inclusion. I am just saying I found it slightly inelegant to keep hearing it. I am not even sure why, and, as I say, I know it is hugely annoying to bring a problem with no suggested solution. I once had a boss who hated that so much, he'd be spitting feathers right now. Anyway, it may not be fixable and may not be perceived as a problem by anyone else, and I am perfectly happy to be told to stfu or some similarly polite formula. I just wanted to mention it, and now I have! Best to all DBaK (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks DBaK - I take the point about the repetitive language. I've reworded some of the Category A stuff, so hopefully that's a bit better. I'm not sure what to do about 'Baronialized' - the only ways I can think of rewording without losing meaning end up being quite wordy, e.g. 'remodelled in the Baronial style', or similar. The sources I'm using repeat that word more than I do! I'll see if anything comes to me; happy to hear suggestions if anyone has any. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! I like the Cat A improvements – it's just an easier read. I can see that Baronialized is a problem, and does need to be said. Maybe there's no fix and it should simply stay as is. If I suddenly see a brilliant way forward, I will certainly suggest it! Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered - just trying to make this easier for the FAC coordinators, do you feel like making a support/oppose statement here? No problem if you intend to sit on the fence, just checking. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 18:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Done – see up ^ there somewhere. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

I will recuse and review this. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:INFOBOXREF
  : "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere".

  Good point, gone.

• "The house has been extended and remodelled several times since 1602". Do we need "since 1602"?

  No, gone

• The lead seems very long. And four paragraphs? See
  MOS:LEADLENGTH
  , which suggests "Two or three paragraphs" for articles of "15,000–30,000 characters". This one is 16,000, barely above the "One or two paragraphs" level; that 16k includes the lengthy lead, so an argument could be made that the lead should be one or two paragraphs.

  Fair point. I've trimmed some text, and merged P1 and P2. Any better, or do you think more needs to go?

It still seems long to me, but it just about sneaks under what I would consider the maximum allowable.

• Link laird.

  linked

• The lead says "The house was originally built between 1600 and 1602" but I can't find that in the article.

  I can't find where 1602 was coming from. Several sources say that 20 March 1600 was when work was started; something I've read must have given a 1602 completion date, but I'm not now seeing it, so I've removed it from the lead.

• " Alexander McGill and James Smith". Architects? Could we be told?

  (I sort of thought that was implicit from the fact that they were being asked to draw up plans for a remodelling, and they were linked.) Now clarified.

  But you have "Thomas White, a landscape architect from Nottinghamshire, drew up plans for new and extensive landscaped gardens".

  True, but I couldn't provide a wikilink for him.

MOS:FORCELINK

"as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence."

• "carrying off what they could and destroying what could not be easily transported". Optional: avoid "could" twice in five words?

  reworded

• "James and John Adam ". Who were?

  ("Who is Gazza?") Clarified

• "and built the large bow window" → 'including building the large bow window' maybe?

  Yes, better, changed.

• "these were not carried out". "these" → 'this'.

  better, changed

• "Detailed records survive showing the layout of the house's gardens in 1760, showing walled courts". "showing ... showing".

  reworded

• "The house's current Baronial Revival appearance". Link Baronial Revival at this first mention.

  linked

• "reputed" occurs four times. Some synonyms?

  Only one now.

• "when it was designated a Category A listed building". I think this is worthy of a separate sentence.

  I have given moved things around a bit, see what you think.

Looks good.

• Link capitals.

  Done - hope nobody brings up

  MOS:SOB

• "Baronialized". Why the upper case initial letter?

  I'm not wedded to it, but it is the style used in most (but not all) of my sources. I've checked a ample of six books on my shelf (all by British academics, in reputable publishers): two books (both 20th C) use lower case, four books (all 21st C) use capitals. I recognise that the Wikipedia house style leans towards lower case however, so will change it if you or other reviewers think it should be lower case.

  I have searched and failed to find anything in the MOS which allows the capitalisation to remain. Admittedly MoS is a warren, so feel free to relook.

  I will change if anyone wants me to - I have no axe to grind on capitals. Just to explain the approach I took, most sources I have read treat Scottish Baronial, or Scotch Baronial, as a proper name for a particular architectural style (in the same way they might treat Gothic): they capitalise it. When talking about old buildings that were modified in the 19th C to conform with this new aesthetic, most sources I have read treat the past-tenseverb 'Baronialized' as being derived from a proper name by capitalising it. I have followed that style, as many of our articles to with the verb 'Gothicised' (seek and ye shall find). Please read this as being intended to be explanatory, rather than persuasive - if anyone asks that I change it, I'll be happy to. My instinct would be not to capitalise, I'm following the sources rather than my own view of 'proper writing' here.

The MoS agrees that "Eponyms are capitalized". So, yes, Gothicised, cus of the Goths. Likewise Corinthian. Georgian. Jacobean. And so on. But not Baronial. Er, I am assuming that the style was not named after someone called "Baron"?

No, definitely not named for a person. I invoked 'Gothicised' as an example of a proper noun retaining its capital when turned into a verb. The majority of the best sources I have read on the subject - by that, I mean work by academics either about specific buildings, or about Scottish architecture in general - treat Scottish Baronial as a proper name and consistently capitalise both words; when they refer to nineteenth-century modifications of older buildings to conform to the fashion of the time, the majority also capitalise the verb. The MOS tells us that we only capitalise "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". My own small review shows a 4:2 majority, which is a majority, however I accept that it is perhaps not substantial enough to overcome the general guidance that "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". There are scholars who do not capitalise it, and so it is probably not strictly necessary - I will therefore bow to your concerns, and make it lower case.

By no means definitive, but indicative and interesting - [2]

Also interesting: Scottish Baronial. Then we get into the classic quantitative versus qualitative NGram discussion (how many of these results are coming from books written by academics, as opposed to general guidebooks and the like?), which is a battle I don't feel like fighting. I'm content to go with the 'use lower case where you can' spirit of the MOS.

Yes, it is. And yes, no way of extracting RSs from the noise; which is why I prefaced with "By no means definitive, but indicative". Still, as you said, a lack of evidence of overwhelming use of upper case.

• "many of its historical features remain intact". "its" → 'their'?
• "many of its historical features remain intact". "its" → 'their'?

  fixed

Nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Gog the Mild - as ever, a good eye for detail. Please see above, I've addressed almost everything, just the question of capitalisation remains. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good. Supporting, but I shall keep an eye on the B/b thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support gratefully accepted, Gog the Mild - a couple of more comments above. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B/b thing resolved, see comments above. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Will look at this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 14:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead says that it was in "some disrepair", while the body says that it was "quite dilapidated". Maybe its just me, but the latter seems to imply a greater degree of damage than the former

  I guess I was trying to avoid repetitive language, but I agree that you're right that they have slightly different meanings, and they're sufficiently far apart in the article not to have to worry about repetition. The source says 'dilapidated', so I've changed it to that in the lead.

• In the lead, you identify Kit Martin as a specialist in saving old buildings, recommend introducing him as that in the body as well

  Introduced, with a little bit of moving things around.

• "The house has been extended and remodelled several times, by prominent architects such as William Adam" - Did William Adam work on the house? This is what this in the lead implies, but the body only mentions him working on the bridge on the grounds

  You've got me Adam senior only worked on the bridge, not the house. Gone.

• Do we know the approximate dimensions of the building? It seems a bit odd for a FAC about a building to not really state how large the structure is

  This is frustrating. I can measure off an areal photograph on Google maps, which tells me that each of the main wings is about 60 metres in length, but that's OR off a dubious source. None of the sources I've been able to lay hands on actually give any dimensions. Canmore tells me that there are plans and elevations of the building, made in 1930-31, stored at the National Library of Scotland in special collections, but those aren't digitised and I think I'd need to recruit a friendly academic to go and access that stuff for me. Would this be a showstopper?

  No. If it's not realistically available, then its not a big deal. Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Image licensing looks fine
• Sources all appear to be reliable

Very good work; not much for me to pick on here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm - thanks for the review, much appreciated. Comments above. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on

WP:FACR 1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4; did not check against others. Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

4. Consider embedding a child template for Various architects to avoid Various, including. I think it would make the Infobox look cleaner. This could also be Contributing architects.Venicescapes (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes - please look at what I've done with the list of architects now, is this better, or do you still think a child template would help?

5. You link to Scottish Baronial Revival, which according to the article is a nineteenth century style. Since the house is in the original style on which the revival is based, would this be better: Renaissance_in_Scotland#Architecture? In this case, you might want to insert a See also link to Scottish Baronial Architecture at the beginnning of the architecture section.Venicescapes (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, the house was originally built in the original authentic style, but it was massively extended in the 18th century, and the additions then were in more of a Georgian style. Bryce's 19th-century work on the building attempted to reconcile the competing styles, and bring the overall look into the then-fashionable Scottish Baronial style, which is how all the sources I've looked at describe its current appearance.

• Infobox is okay.Venicescapes (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

First paragraph: I would delete now divided into fourteen separate dwellings (it detracts from the importance of the house as the seat of the family and is covered in the third paragraph). The sentence It was the seat of the Ogilvies of Findlater, who went on to become the Earls of Findlater and Seafield, and remained in their family until 1982. should probably be moved to after Scotland. It concerns the family, and it interrupts the history of the building of the house in its present location.

Result: Cullen House is a large house about 1 kilometre (0.6 mi) south west of the coastal town of Cullen in Moray, Scotland. It was the seat of the Ogilvies of Findlater, who went on to become the Earls of Findlater and Seafield, and remained in their family until 1982. Building work started on the house in 1600, incorporating some of the stonework of an earlier building on the site. It has been extended and remodelled several times, by prominent architects...

Done

Second paragraph: I would delete when the incumbent Countess was forced to pay a large ransom to prevent it from being burned down. The information is covered in the main part of the article. The stated purpose of the paragraph is to mention the two times the house was captured.

Done

Third paragraph: You have two instances with compound predicates that are separated from their subjects by commas. There are various solutions. Consider:

Martin worked with the local architect Douglas Forrest to convert the house into fourteen individual dwellings, retaining much of the original interior of the building.

The house was badly damaged by fire in 1987, after which it underwent an extensive programme of restoration that lasted until 1989.

Both done

Perhaps some clarification is needed here: She did not use it as her primary residence, nor did Ian Ogilvie-Grant who inherited it on his mother's death in 1969.

Was this the first time that the house was not the primary residence? If so, consider, Unlike previous members of the family (or something similar), she did not use...

I can't say for certain. Certainly, this is the first time I came across sources commenting upon the fact that it the current owner wasn't living there most of the time. My guess would be that the previous owners spent a substantial amount of their time away as well - it would have been normal for them to have spent quite a bit of time Edinburgh and/or London on business. Nobody saw fit to comment upon it though, whereas there were quite a number of sources from the first half of the 20th C commenting on how much little time the Countess actually spent in Cullen. So, I'm confident about what I've written, but I'm not sure that I have any more to say about the previous owners.

It seems that Ian was Nina's son, but it is not stated. Consider: ... nor did her son Ian Ogilvie-Grant who inherited it upon his mother's death in 1969.

Done

• A few final touches to the lead.Venicescapes (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was the seat of the Ogilvies of Findlater, who went on to become the Earls of Findlater and Seafield, and remained in their family until 1982.

Since the relative clause is a little long, I would insert it before remained: ...Seafield, and it remained in their family...

Done

The house has been extended and remodelled several times, by prominent architects such as James and John Adam, and David Bryce.

Delete comma after times. Also after Adam (you could also do: James Adam, John Adam and David Bryce).

Done (and listed as you suggest)

It has been described by the architectural historian Charles McKean as "one of the grandest houses in Scotland", and is designated a Category A listed building.

Delete comma after Scotland (it separates the second predicate from its subject)

Done

Images

On my screen, the images pile up with the info box on the right. Consider placing the two images of the arms (they’re closely related) into a multiple image box, perhaps positioned on the left. Venicescapes (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've put them into a multiple image box; I tried it out on the left, but it looked awkward to my eye, and I couldn't find a way to wrap the text nicely - what do you think about having it on the right.

• Images are okayVenicescapes (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

Initial construction

I had to read the first paragraph multiple times.

Consider beginning with: Set on a clifftop above the Cullen Burn, Cullen House was built by the Ogilvies of Findlater, who had their seat at Findlater Castle.

Done

Can you give a sense of the direction and distance between Findlater Castle and Cullen House? I’m not clear if Cullen House is in addition to, or in substitution of, Findlater Castle.

I've added a bit on this, but I should confess that this is a little bit of OR based on measuring the distance off a map. I think it's still verifiable though, any decent map of the area would show both structures.

Their parish church had traditionally been at Fordyce, but in 1482 the Ogilvies were granted the lands of Findochty and Seafield. By 1543 they had changed their patronage to Cullen Old Church,[1] which they elevated to the status of a collegiate church.

Most of my confusion came from these two sentences. The phrase concerning the lands of Findochty and Seafield is wedged between two phrases that talk about church patronage. Assuming that I understand correctly, consider: The lands of Findochty and Seafield were granted to the family in 1482, and by 1543 they had changed their patronage from their traditional parish church at Fordyce to Cullen Old Church, which they elevated to the status of a collegiate church.

Reworked in-line with your suggestions.

Buildings from around this time, which served as accommodation for the church's canons, stood on the site of the current house.

Were these buildings constructed by the family?

Almost certainly, since they were the patrons of the church; my sources aren't explicit about those buildings though, and it's not impossible that they predated the Ogilvie's patronage of the church.

On 20 March 1600, work was started on a large new L-plan tower house for the laird, Sir Walter Ogilvy, and his wife Dame Margaret Drummond, building upon some of the structure of the canons' lodgings.

Since the first paragraph discusses the earlier buildings on the site, I would move the information on the canons’ lodgings to the beginning. Consider: On 20 March 1600, building upon some of the structure of the canons' lodgings, a large new L-plan tower house was begun for the laird, Sir Walter Ogilvy, and his wife Dame Margaret Drummond.

Done

The family continued to prosper: in 1616, Walter Ogilvy was created Lord Ogilvy of Deskford; his son James was further elevated to become the first Earl of Findlater in 1638; in 1701 another James would become the Earl of Findlater and Seafield.

This seems unrelated to a section that is nominally dedicated to the Initial construction. Do you know of any work done by Walter or James that could tie this into construction?

I've moved the bit about the fourth earl into the next section, so that we are continuing with the chronological approach.

Extension and modification

In the centuries following its initial construction, the house underwent a series of renovations, extensions and modifications.

Since you bring the history up to fairly recent times, you might want to consider: Since its initial contruction, the house has undergone a series….

This is a fair point, but I'm trying to give a sense that it was repeatedly extended and remodelled in the 17th-19th centuries, which is described in this section. There was then an extended period when the house was neglected and allowed to fall into disrepair, before its latest renovation, which I cover in the next section.

A tower was added in 1660, shortly after the third Earl inherited it.[2] In 1709 the architects Alexander McGill and James Smith were asked to submit plans for a complete remodelling in the Palladian style. These were drawn up, but in the end less radical extensions and modifications were executed to the north and west wings, between 1711 and 1714.

Should Earl be capitalized?

No, I don't think so. My understanding is that if the whole title is given then it's a proper name (so Earl of Findlater), but if it's just the word on its own then it's lower case. I think I'm consistent on this now.

Do you know anything about the Palladian plans and why they were not executed. Was it a question of taste, cost, other?

I don't know. My guess would have been cost, but the sources aren't specific.

The house was ransacked for a second time during the Jacobite rising of 1745. James Ogilvy, 5th Earl of Findlater and 2nd Earl of Seafield, had travelled with his wife to Aberdeen to meet the Duke of Cumberland who was pursuing Bonny Prince Charlie's Jacobite army. In their absence, a group of Charles's supporters forced their way into the house on 8 April 1746 and ransacked it, carrying off as much as possible and destroying what could not be easily transported. Three days later, continuing his pursuit that would end at the Battle of Culloden, Cumberland arrived at the scene accompanied by Findlater to find the doors of the house forced open, the windows broken, and broken furniture and discarded papers strewn around the grounds.[6][8][9] Findlater subsequently petitioned Parliament for the sum of £8,000 in compensation for the losses incurred, but it is not clear whether he ever received any payment.

This whole paragraph is problematic. The section is entitled Extension and modification, but this is later history. Perhaps a different title for the section, although both the preceding and following sections concern building. Another idea could be a separate section on history.

My problem here is that this ransacking took place in the middle of the period of extension and modification. I think that breaking it out into a different section would interrupt the chronological flow. I've changed the section title to Extension, modification and Jacobite assault, does that work for you?

Architects James and John Adam worked on the house from 1767 to 1769, installing the main staircase and building the gatehouse, and John Baxter made more internal modifications, including building the large bow window in the east facade, between 1777 and 1778.[7][2]

Recommend breaking off the second part into a separate sentence. Perhaps:. … building the gatehouse. Between 1777 and 1778, John Baxter made more internal modifications, including the building of the large bow window in the east facade.

Note: add the and of

Done

Check numerical sequence of references.

In 1780, Robert Adam was commissioned by the fourth Earl to provide a design for an entirely new house; this was not carried out however, nor were James Playfair's 1788 designs for an extensive remodelling in "the Saxon style". Playfair's walled garden was constructed in the grounds in that year.[7][2]

Earl capitalized?

Done

Again, do you know why the designs were not executed?

Again, no, probably cost but the sources aren't specific.

Check numerical sequence of references.

Ugh, the numerical sequences are a pain. I fixed all those when it went through GA, and thought I'd been careful while moving things around during the Peer Review, but I must have overlook a few. I think it's sorted now.

Venicescapes (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deterioration and renovation

However, the house was not her primary residence, and she spent most of her time at her home in Nassau in the Bahamas; the house was open to the public for part of the year in the 1960s.

Consider: However, since she spent most of her time at her home in Nassau in the Bahamas, the house was not her primary residence, and it was open to the public for part of the year in the 1960s.

I prefer your version, changed.

He also lived elsewhere, and used the house commercially to host shooting parties and private functions.

Delete comma after elsewhere (compound predicate) OR transform into compound sentence by inserting he after and.

Changed

If possible, avoid triple compound sentences. Consider: In 1972 it was designated a Category A listed building. By this time, however, it had become quite dilapidated, and its contents were sold off in 1975.

The authors of the sources I used seem unafraid of the triple or quadruple compound sentence! Nevertheless, changed.

Firefighters fought to contain the blaze and managed to put it out within three hours, but severe damage was caused to the south east corner and the west wing.

Consider: Firefighters fought to contain the blaze, and although they managed to put it out within three hours, severe damage was caused to the south east corner and the west wing.

Better, changed.

Suggest dividing sentence: Restoration work was carried out over the course of the next two years, using photographic records and material recovered from the fire to restore the external masonry to its original appearance. Specialist joiners and plasterers were brought in to work on the interiors, but some of the building's internal features including an early seventeenth-century painted ceiling in the second salon were irreparably damaged.Venicescapes (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better, changed.

Architecture

I would move the information on its location (set on a clifftop above the Cullen Burn) to the very beginning of the article: Set on a clifftop above the Cullen Burn, Cullen House was built by the Ogilvies of Findlater, who had their seat at Findlater Castle. This section should deal with just architecture. The resulting sentence could be: Cullen House is a large, ornately decorated, turreted house. OR Cullen House is a large turreted house that is ornately decorated.

I think this needs to be somewhere in the body of the article, if it is to be included in the lead. I don't think that a brief description of the building's situation is entirely out of place at the start of a section about its architecture? I guess I could have a separate section on 'situation', but it would probably be very short. Do you insist on this change?

Sorry, I meant at the beginning of Initial construction

Understood - done

I would move The original seventeenth-century L-plan tower house, which itself incorporated stonework from earlier buildings on the site, has been extended by the addition of wings to the north and south. to the beginning of the Exterior subsection. As is, it gives the impression that you’re about to explain the evolution of the house, but then you return to the broad statement by McKean.Venicescapes (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this.

Interior

Triple compound sentences can be cumbersome. Consider: The main house has been divided into seven separate apartments, but each of the principal rooms has been preserved, many of their historical features remaining intact.

I've moved things around slightly and made into two sentences.

Can you give a sense of the size of the various apartments?

Unfortunately, no - Hog Farm raised a similar issue, about the dimensions of the whole building, but none of the sources I've been able to access give me any figures for dimensions. Apparently there are plans and elevations dating to 1931 in the Scottish National Library in Edinburgh, in their special collections, but I don't have access to that and I'm not sure they would count as a published source for our purposes.

Beyond this is a two-storey stair hall, with a staircase and ceiling by James Adam, and an elaborately carved wooden door, dated 1618, with its original key and lock.

Are both the staircase and ceiling by James Adams? If not, reword.

Yes - stair hall, staircase and ceiling are all James Adam. Do you think I need to reword to avoid ambiguity?

Try: Beyond this is a two-storey stair hall, with a staircase and ceiling, both by James Adam, and an elaborately carved wooden door...

Done

…with its original key and lock.

This seems excessively detailed, unless the lock is by a renowned locksmith.

I like this little detail - there aren't many doors that old in Scotland, and very few with their original furniture. Are you set on losing it?

It's fine.

Many of the house's original public rooms retain original Victorian ceilings; others, which were damaged in the fire of 1987, have been restored or reproduced. A grand Jacobean painted ceiling, depicting a siege of Troy and bearing the Royal arms of Scotland (suggesting that it predated the 1603 Union of the Crowns),[5] was destroyed by the fire, and has been replaced by a painting of bubbles and astronauts by Robert Ochardson.

bubbles and astronauts … oh my!

Ha - yes, you get a really strong sense of Walker and Woodworth's opinions about that ceiling when they describe the interior - their description is very measured, but the derision is dripping out between the lines.

Change to: the siege of Troy

Good point - I haven't heard of another one!

With the parentheses, the sentence is long. Consider breaking off the second part: …was destroyed by the fire. It has been replaced by a painting of bubbles and astronauts by Robert Ochardson.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Check numerical sequence of references throughout article. For example: There is a square entrance hall in the north wing, with a fireplace decorated with blue and white Delftware tiles.[18][2] Venicescapes (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is fixed now throughout the article.

Grounds

You might want to consider restructuring this section. At the end of the first three paragraphs, you make the same statement about the structure's being listed. Is it possible to combine these into a single introductory sentence? The grounds contain several structures which are Category A listed in their own right. These include a bridge, gatehouse, and a temple. The appropriate references can be after bridge, gatehouse, and temple.

Great idea - that also helps to address one of DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered's concerns about the repetitiveness in this section.

First paragraph: Leading off the house's west courtyard is a bridge built between 1744 and 1745 by William Adam, which spans the gorge of the Cullen Burn. It has a single arch, with a span of 25.6 metres (84 ft) and a height of 19.5 metres (64 ft), and is built of granite ashlar with rubble spandrels. Can you avoid the double span? Perhaps Leading off the house's west courtyard and crossing the gorge of the Cullen Burn is a bridge built between 1744 and 1745 by William Adam. Built of granite ashlar with rubble spandrels, it has a single arch, with a span of 25.6 metres (84 ft) and a height of 19.5 metres (64 ft).Venicescapes (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Second paragraph: At the south-east entrance to the estate is a gatehouse known as the Grand Entrance, built by James Adam between 1767 and 1768. The two participles should be joined by a conjunction OR rewritten as At the south-east entrance to the estate is a gatehouse, the Grand Entrance, built by James Adam between 1767 and 1768.

Changed

This wide entrance for carriages is built in the form of a triumphal arch, with Ionic columns supporting a pediment with armorial decoration in the tympanum, and decorated with lions, rampant at the apex, and recumbent to the sides. Can you avoid the double with? Also, where exactly are the lions? Inside the tympanum, but on the sides?

Changed. The lions are on top of the tympanum, I've reworded slightly to make that clearer.

Third paragraph: Would it be appropriate to say Grecian temple pavilion with a link to Pavilion? Is the temple inside the walled garden? If so, this should be clearer. If not, the information on the garden might be more appropriate in the fourth paragraph. Is this a two-storey structure? It seems to be but could be clearer. Is the tearoom also circular? The second sentence should be broken up.

I'll come back to this shortly. I'm away from home, and won't have access to the offline sources describing this structure for a few days - I'll try to make it clearer ASAP.

I found another online source, and have rejigged this paragraph with a bit more detail. I moved the bit about the walled garden into the fourth paragraph. See what you think.

Fourth paragraph: I would reorganize the final paragraph for parallelism. The first three all have the structures as the topic, whereas you start the fourth with Robertson and his nephews. Consider: The grounds contain a number of other estate buildings, many of which were designed by Robertson and, after his death, by his nephews Alexander and William Reid who continued his practice. These include an ice house, a garden house, a laundry, and cottages for staff such as gardeners.Venicescapes (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Thanks for such a thorough and helpful review, Venicescapes - you made some excellent suggestions, and picked up on quite a few things where my writing could have been better. I have addressed almost all of them now, but will need access to an offline source that I don't have with me right now to act on your suggestions for the rotunda/pavilion. Let me know if I've missed anything, very much appreciated. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Venicescapes - I think I've addressed everything now, including the paragraph about the Temple of Pomona after I found another online source describing it. See what you think. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 09:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It looks good. Two items. 1. You need to delete had here: There was originally had a statue depicting either Pomona or Pheme at the centre of the rotunda. 2. Grounds should probably be moved up a level. It's not really a subcategory of Architecture, which concerns the house.Venicescapes (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again - both done. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was in third paragraph of lead: In 1982 before being was purchased by Kit Martin, a specialist in saving historic buildings. Insert comma after 1982.Venicescapes (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done - that got messed up while applying some of TRM's fixes. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Lee Vilenski - pass

• Sources
  • The majority of the sources look like book citations, which are fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The newspaper items could do with some archive-urls if possible. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added archive URLs for all the newspaper sources, but they don't seem to be working for me, is there something clever you have to do to get access to archived URLs if they're paywalled? (I have a Newspapers.com subscription, but I'm guessing that Internet Archive doesn't know that?)

  • Seems to be a range of ISBN values, perhaps choose between 10 and 13? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They're all ISBN 13 now, good spot

  • Worth using a |via for the newspaper.com links? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Done

  • Seems a range of linked and non-linked. Historic Environment Scotland is linked, but not The Guardian? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've linked all the sources that seem linkable.

• Spot check

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski I think all the issues you raised with the sources are sorted now,just awaiting any spot checks. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 16:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Spot checks came up fine. Happy to support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

• It might be just me, but the location of the house I feel is secondary to its significance, so I would switch that lead sentence with "It was the seat of the..." and the bonus is you aren't saying "... House ... is a ... house".

  I agree with you about the awkwardness of 'house is a house'. I'm concerned about starting the first sentence with 'Cullen House was...' however, because that implies (to my mind) that it no longer exists - since the first sentence is meant to define what the subject is, I think that saying it's a large house near Cullen is accurate. How strongly do you feel that this needs changing?

  Not strongly. Certainly only my opinion of course. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "in 1969. By 1972 ... in 1975. In 1982 " bit jarring all this lot...

  I've reworded a bit to lose two of the years - better?

• "that lasted until 1989" could say "a two-year" or something to avoid another year...

  Done

• "the Cullen Burn" never a fan of part-linking formal titles to generic terms.

  Hmm. I'd thought about writing a short article about the Cullen Burn to allow me to link the entire phrase, but haven't found the sources yet to allow it yet. I'm slightly concerned that it might not be obvious to a non-Scottish reader that the Cullen Burn is a small river - how strongly do you feel about this?

  I think it's not appropriate to part-link formal titles. I guess you could footnote it and link burn there. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Unlinked, footnote added.

• Is there a link for "Findlater"?

  No - the only links available are

  Earl of Findlater

  , both of which are already linked in the article.

• "elevated to the status of a collegiate church." outside my comfort zone entirely but what's the hierarchy of churches and who decides what status each one has?

  See

  Collegiate Church (which is linked). A collegiate church has prebendary canons supported by a financial endowment by a wealthy patron. It's a kind of mediaeval bling - the Findlaters were showing they could afford to pimp their parish church. If you take a look at Cullen Old Church

  , you will see that they even had their own fancy carved gallery installed, so they didn't have to sit amongst the hoi polloi. Any change needed here do you think?

  I think it might be useful to have a referenced footnote explaining this because it's certainly not something a non-expert would be familiar with. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've expanded on this with a more detailed footnote - is that any better?

• "of 1264[2][3] and" comma after 1264.

  Done

• "The house was nearly ... The house was thoroughly... " repetitive back-to-back.

  Changed second one to 'it'

• "arms of the Earl of Seafield" any reason that's not "Arms"?

  The MOS generally calls for things not to be capitalised unless they are consistently capitalised in sources. This NGram suggests that lower-case 'arms' is more common.

  But it's the first word in the sentence fragment? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Bloody hell. Should have just looked at the article rather than trying to be clever. Fixed.

• "after the third earl inherited" did you mention who the "third earl" was?

  I haven't; I'm not sure that it would add much, I don't have anything to say about him apart from his name, which was James Ogilvie - just like the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh earls. Do you think this would be useful?

• "Jacobite army" could link Jacobite, as you've only linked it in the lead.

  I thought that linking to the '45 rising would have been sufficient, but linked.

• "petitioned Parliament for the sum of £8,000 in" which Parliament? And inflate £8,000.

  Parliament linked; £8,000 inflated with a footnote

• Could link facade.

  Done

• "rooms. [1]" no space

  Good spot, thanks

• "and in 1915 it was inherited by Nina Ogilvie-Grant-Studley-Herbert, the 12th Countess of Seafield, who was reputed to be the wealthiest woman in Britain after Queen Elizabeth II." seems odd because Elizabeth II had yet to be born in 1915...

  Yes, I was wondering how best to phrase this. I've changed it to 'who later gained a reputation as' - better?

• "He also lived elsewhere, and he used the" no need for the second "he".

  Yep, done

• Maybe link "joiner".

  Done, and also plasterer

• "The subdivided house" probably needs an "as of".

  done

• Our article on "Faith" appears to be at
  Faith (virtue)
  which redirects to the generic "virtues" article.

  What do you suggest doing about this? The other two virtues mentioned have articles about them already - I don't feel well-placed to write one about Faith to avoid the conflict, but I think that having only two of them linked would look a bit odd.

  You can leave it I guess. If someone (else) gets round to writing an article then it'll just nicely point at it straight away... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• " by James Adam, and" overlinked.

  MOS:DL

  suggests that linking on first mention after the lead may be useful. This is the first mention after the lead, and it's quite a long way into the article. I'll remove if you insist, but this seems useful to me.

  It's linked here: "Architects James and John Adam worked..." The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah yes - I searched for "James Adam", but of course on first mention I didn't include the surname. Unlinked.

• "replaced by a painting of bubbles and astronauts" what? I mean, WHAT?

  IKR?! That's all the source gives me, and it's exactly as they describe. They don't criticise it explicitly, but the derision is dripping out between the lines.

• "polished ashlar. An" overlinked.

  Gone

• Ref 6 should be pp.

  Fixed

• Some works are linked and some aren't, what's the strategy in the refs?

  I thought I'd linked all the linkable ones, but I see a couple I'd missed - are there any more where you can see a link could be added?

• Refs 23 and 24 don't work for me.

  I think it's something funny about the Internet Archive pages. The 'archived from the original' links should work. I wasn't sure whether it was something I was doing wrong, or if the archive pages were broken - want me to remove the archive links?

  I'm not sure which refs they are now! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think if you clip them out inside newspapers.com and then force archive.org to archive the URL of the clipped page, you're in business. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Urgh, I don't know how to do that, I'm pretty new to Newspapers.com, and I'm useless at getting archive.org to do anything I want it to. Any chance of a hand here? They're now numbered 28 and 29 if that helps. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've done 28 but can't access 29 because I don't subscribe to Independent archives. Basically, use the scissor icon, then drag the rectangle over the clipping you wish to preserve, reshape it and hit "clip" and then "view clipping" takes you to a new URL which is accessible without subscription and can be more easily archived. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The Rambling Man Thanks. That wasn't so difficult after all. I think that's it done now. I've asked EdwardUK to look at the double space issue in the template - is there anything else you need doing here? Girth Summit _(blether) 14:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The template has been changed to remove the double spaces - not sure how I'd never noticed it before. EdwardUK (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 25 has an author (Ben Flanagan)

  Added (ditto from preceding one)

• It's also "via Newspapers.com"

  Added

• Ref 27 appears to have a double space in the title.

  I'm not seeing that. The ref uses a template, but I'm not seeing the double space, can you look again?

  Ah, 27 through 29 all have double spaces before the opening parenthesis. It must be something to do with the template you're using? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess so. The template is used on thousands of articles across the project, I'm not comfortable changing it myself, but I'll reach out to its author and ask them to take a look at this issue.

• Ref 29, spaced hyphen should be en-dash, and avoiding the SHOUTING.

  Done

That's my lot, nice article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, The Rambling Man. I've addressed all of your points above - changed most of them, asked for clarification/further thoughts on a few. Let me know what you think. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 13:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit some replies above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks The Rambling Man - I've made a few more changes, see what you think. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is good to go as far as I'm concerned, so happy to support now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]