Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire/archive1

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire

Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured listing as a companion piece to Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire, which became a Featured List last year. Together, I think they may be the only Grade I and Grade II* listed building county lists for England and Wales which have articles and images for every entry, although it's quite possible I'm wrong about that. With over 240 entries, this is obviously a major collaborative effort, but I'd like to record particular thanks to KTC, who began the list, and Tryptofish, sadly no longer editing, who helped me enormously when my head was throbbing over some devilish coding issues. Any and all comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a beautiful list. Ping me if this doesn't pick up a support in the next two weeks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s very kind. It provided a wonderful excuse for visits to a county I love very much. We’ll see how it fares and you can expect a ping! KJP1 (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments by Bilorv

(Planning to submit this review for WikiCup points.)

Resolved comments from — Bilorv (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* The building descriptions in the table look to be taken (almost) verbatim from the given sources. Does Cadw publish its website under a suitable free license?
Done - That is an interesting question which had not previously occurred to me. I think they were imported wholesale at the time of the list's construction, [2]. It think they'd probably be ok, certainly Cadw gives no indication that the information is published under copyright, but to be sure, I've amended all of them. KJP1 (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our presumption should always be that something is copyrighted, rather than isn't. I've looked over 10 random entries and found they all avoid close paraphrasing, but are still verified by the given source, so that resolves the problem for me. Thanks for the quick work on this. — Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made some hopefully uncontroversial typographical changes in this edit.
Noted with thanks. Absolutely fine with these. KJP1 (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:UNITSYMBOLS
    says Use a non-breaking space between a number and a unit symbol, or use {{nowrap}}. The figures given in metres (e.g. "650m") all need a non-breaking space between number and unit.
Done - As part of rewording the notes, I took the opportunity to standardise all of the distances into km/m conversion templates which I think addresses this concern. KJP1 (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tredean House: lkm northwest of Devauden – that's the letter "l" before "km". Should it be 1 or something else?
Done.
  • Ty-asch: late C16th century – can the "C" be removed, or does it mean something other than "century"?
Done.
  • I think quotes always need attribution in prose, not just as a reference: I see three without this in the lead, The "neo-classical monster", little gut of a river, the Wye and only full-scale Victorian country house. An alternative is rewording to avoid being a direct quote.
Done, done and done.
  • Llanarth Court, is exceptional in both scale and style, although not in its origins. – I'm not quite sure what "not [exceptional] in its origins" means and whether it's appropriate to say this in Wikipedia's voice.
Explanation - what I'm trying to say here, leading on from the previous sentence, is that, although Llanarth Court is uncommonly large for Monmouthshire, and its architectural style is uncommon for the county, its origin, as a house for a family of Monmouthshire gentry with local rather than national significance, is not uncommon, i.e. most of the Grade II* houses were built for minor gentry, although they weren't as big or as swanky as that of the Herberts. Does it work?
This needs saying in more detail, or omitting. Perhaps: "[...] is exceptional in both scale and style for a family of minor gentry"? — Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded.
  • first systematically covered by William Coxe in his two-volume, An Historical Tour in Monmouthshire – should this be a two-volume something (e.g. "two-volume series")?
Done - gone for "journal".
  • The last was described by the architectural historian Peter Smith as "one of the most remarkable studies of vernacular architecture yet made in the British Isles,[40] a landmark, in its own field, as significant as Darwin's Origin of Species".[41] – Is this two separate quotes, the latter one attributed to Newman, as the refs suggest?
Explanation - they are indeed two quotes, but they're both Smith. The first is from the first edition of his Houses of the Welsh Countryside, which I have and can quote from directly. The second is from his second edition, originally published 1987, reissued 1994. Unfortunately, I don't have this edition, so am able only to quote Newman, quoting Smith, who says, "Indeed, Peter Smith, in his introduction to the reprint edition of 1994, calls it 'this landmark...as significant as Darwin's Origin of Species". I've split it into two quotes - does this help? KJP1 (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine, but I've added an "and" between the quotes for clarity. — Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you mention (in prose) the Newman and Fox/Raglan publishing dates?
Done.
  • The middle paragraph of the lead is a behemoth and can maybe best be split at the end of the "They include seventy-two houses ..." sentence, bringing my next point. I think the lead overall is too long, well beyond the four-paragraph limit (and I think there's an unwritten rule that lists can go beyond that, but not this far beyond). I would split the details of the individual buildings and architects/notable people into a new section, "Individual buildings and people" (or a better title if you can think of one). So then the lead would have a paragraph on Monmouthshire, a paragraph & bullets on what a listed building is, a paragraph giving the number of each type of building, and a paragraph on the literature. In the body would be two chunky paragraphs of content on architecture, specific buildings and notable people. If you think there's a better way to do this then let me know, but I think the amount of content in the lead is currently excessive.
Attempted - have tried a lead split as suggested. Let me know what you think. KJP1 (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this looks good! — Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Bilorv (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv - Many thanks for the review. Very helpful and I shall get right on to these. KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv - Aside from the three questions above, I hope I've addressed all of the concerns. Could you take a look and let me know if you're satisfied. Thanks once again for the detailed review. KJP1 (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of typo fixes here. Responded inline to anything that still needs addressing; everything else is fine. — Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv - Had a go at rewording Llanarth Court. Any clearer? KJP1 (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is sufficient. No outstanding issues so it's a support from me, noting that I haven't reviewed
criterion 5(b) (image licenses), nor done a specialised source review. — Bilorv (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Many thanks indeed - for the review and the Support. KJP1 (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

Sources all appear reliable and are what you'd expect for such a list. Some spot checks of online sources did not uncover any issues. buidhe 07:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe - Many thanks indeed for reviewing the Sources. KJP1 (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TRM

(Planning to submit this review for WikiCup points.)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*"with a population of 93,600" probably needs an "as of" here, the area is less likely to be volatile, but I guess the population would have been counted during a specific census?
Done.
  • "...Act 1990[9] rests with Cadw. " unpleasant citation location, could easily go three words to the right after the punctuation.
Done.
  • Hate to be a dreadful bore, but the claim " quite commonly for bridges, has listings for both ends." appears to be unreferenced!
Done. God, that was gruelling. I love efn!
  • "Clytha Park gates[19] and the," again, awkward placement, readers can wait until punctuation or the end of a sentence for these.
Done.
  • "No.s" -> "Nos." or "Numbers"?
Done.
  • " predominantly Medieval, such" no need to capitalise.
Done.
  • "FitzRoy Somerset, 1st Baron Raglan received" comma after Raglan I should think.
Done.
  • "write the hymn, All Things Bright and Beautiful by" don't seeing why a single comma is needed here.
Done.
  • Not seeing clear evidence of MOS:ACCESS i.e. row scopes.
Pending - need to investigate this as don't understand it. May need to call RexxS.
  • "with a drive from" do you mean driveway?
Done.
  • Consider linking bellcote.
Done.
  • Could consider linking roads where articles are available, not clear our international audience know what A48 means.
Done.
  • " Llanvihangel-ystern-llewern" consistent capitalisation.
Done- Hope I've caught every instance.
  • "In Agincourt Square in the centre of the town[128] The former" missing full stop.
Done.
  • 2000m vs 2km, I would be consistent.
Done - I hope. The intention is up to 999m, then as 1 km.
  • "On Market Street, now closed." fragment, no full stop required.
Done.
  • Consistent formatting for accessdates and publication dates please.
Done - I hope. I've picked up six which I've converted to the day-month-year format used elsewhere. Hope that's all of them? KJP1 (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "National Historic Assets of Wales" in all the refs when you use Cadw in the article?
Explanation - It's the format of the template. When User:DavidCane very kindly created it for me, he followed the style of the Historic England template. Cadw maintains the list but the buildings themselves are the National Historic Assets. KJP1 (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term is the equivalent of National Heritage List for England, used at Cof Cymru as the title for the list.--DavidCane (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man - TRM, many thanks indeed for the review. Shall get straight on to these. KJP1 (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Ping me when you're done. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man - TRM, many thanks indeed, for the review and the Support. I’ve asked RexxS to advise on accessibility issues, and will pick this up again if he has the chance to do so. KJP1 (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RexxS

I've tidied the css markup for the rows: classes and styles are best marked up separately.
I can't see why Church Farmhouse, Caldicot should be class="without_image", so I've set it to class="with_image". Please reset that if I've misunderstood. By the way, those classes don't actually seem to do anything at present.
I've added all 218 row headers with proper scopes, and I've reset the font-weight of the header cells to normal weight on the assumption that is what is desired. I can easily remove the font-weight:normal if you would prefer your row headers to contain bold text. Below is a quick accessibility review while I'm here. In brief: acceptable accessibility given the constraints of a list article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS - Hugely appreciate the time, and the infinite trouble you've taken. You didn't misunderstand Church Farmhouse at all. It was one of the last five or so shots I added, after a trip down a few weeks back (that seems a looong time ago now!), and I forgot to reset the class to "with image". Many, many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility review
Topic Comments MoS link
Text Size: No text is below 85% of the basic font size.
MOS:FONTSIZE
Colour
  • Information: No information is given by colour alone.
  • Contrast: All text meets WCAG AAA standard.
MOS:COLOUR
Tables
  • Caption: There is no caption, but the table is placed immediately after a relevant heading, making a caption less important.
  • Structure: The table is arranged as simply as possible.
  • Headers, Scopes: The table has column and row headers, and scopes are correctly indicated.
MOS:DTAB
Images
  • Alt text: The alt text is simply the name of the building, not terribly helpful to a screen reader, but better than having them hear the filename.
  • No fixed size: The images in the table are constrained to a maximum of 150px in either dimension, but images in a list are not likely to benefit from scaling via users' preferences.
MOS:ACCIM

Comments Support from SN54129 Bloody nice looking thing this,
Open Government License ([3])), which—with minor exceptions—is compatible with our CC-BY-SA requirements. I know you resolved the matter for now, but it might come in useful if you undertake a similar project in the future.
This is a technical thing, and maybe RexxS knows (I'm sure he does!), but is it possible to make each image the same width, flush in its box? Apologies if that's a perennial noob question  :)
Should the ref Clark, Arthur (1980) be swapped in position for the 1979 cite?
More of a psssing rumination, but I've never quite understood the philosophy of using harvard referncing for books but full refs for web pages. Why not, for example, Sfn, for example. But I have to assume it's a done thing if others do it!
Is there a reason (perhaps customary, apologies again of this comes up all the time) that Listed buildings in Wales and Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire are "See also", rather than linked on first use? It strikes me as being rather more useful to the reader to know what he's reading about before he starts the list than after...
Also on the "See also", alphbetise the list?
I wonder if it's possible to give the reason for listing each building/structure? The obvious answer is age, but that being the case, say how old. For example, a couple of times you mention "dating from..." or "14th-century...", nt in most cases there's no indication of age.
Hope this is OK with you KJP1, feel free, as ever, to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about  : ——SN54129 13:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Serial Number 54129 and KJP1: it's a trivial matter to make all of these images the same width (give or take a pixel or two): you just replace 150x150px with 150x200px in each row of the table. The image syntax is designed so that the numbers indicate the maximum size of <width x height> that the image will be scaled to. Since almost all of the images have close to a 4:3 aspect ratio (as far as I can see), they are currently either <150px by 112px> or <112px by 150px> – so they have the same area regardless of whether they are portrait or landscape. If you change to maxima of 150x200px, the landscape images will stay the same and the portrait ones will enlarge to 150px by 200px – same width, but they will look bigger. It's an aesthetic decision: same width or same area. I've made a demo so you can compare at User:RexxS/CADW demo. You can see there are a few portrait images that need to be slightly taller because they are 3:2 aspect ratio (try setting 150x225px). See what you think. --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129,RexxS - First, 54129, thanks very much indeed for taking a look. It's appreciated. I shall go through your helpful suggestions, but it will be tomorrow before I can get to them. Second, thanks RexxS for the demo. Personally, I like it a lot, even though it does highlight the fact that some of the images, many of which are mine, are more foliage than building! Some of those, private, homes are damn difficult to get to. I'd be very grateful if RexxS could make the change on the article itself, but perhaps let's wait a bit to see if there are any contrary views. I'll ping in a few days. Hope both of you, and yours, are keeping well in these challenging times. KJP1 (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 and KJP1: if all three of us like the same-width version, I doubt we'll find dissent elsewhere. I've therefore made the simpler change of specifying just the 150px width for table images in the article. It's easy to revert if you change your mind later. Keep safe all. --RexxS (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, RexxS, many thanks. You too! ——SN54129 14:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyright comment SN54129, that's good to know for the future. — Bilorv (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 - many thanks indeed. Have sought to reply to the comments below.

  • Copyright - most helpful clarification and, as Bilorv says, useful for the future.
  • Image widths - I think RexxS has sorted, for which many thanks.
  • Arthur Clarke - This is an oddity. My copies are Volume 2 (first edition) 1979, and Volume 1 (second edition) 1980. So the V2 is actually earlier than the V1. But I agree it looks odd, so I've switched them. Just hope the page numbers of the V1 didn't change!, but I doubt it as the reprint was within a year.
  • sfn for books but not for web - to be honest, I didn't know there was an sfn style for web cites. It's the only one I can use now for books, but have always used <ref> for web citations. I agree it's a mixed approach but it's been accepted at FAC, so I'm hoping it's acceptable here.
  • First mention of Monmouthshire listed buildings including Grade I - I've put a footnote in the lead so that readers can see these before getting to the See also section at the end. Does this meet the need?
  • See also - I've alphabetised this, but left the General and Monmouthshire links at the top. I can make it wholly alphabetic if that's the preference.
  • Reason for listing - You're quite right that it is predominantly age - almost everything pre-1800 will be listed - but for II*s it can also be architectural or historical interest or rarity, or something else. I could try to put summaries in the Notes section, but it would risk making them rather lengthy. What I'm quite proud of in this list is that any interested readers - a possibly unlikely assumption! - can click on the links and read more about the buildings in their individual articles. Can you go with the Notes as they are?

I think this addresses the issues raised, except for the questions on the See also and the one above. Let me know what you think. KJP1 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of my remarks were major criticisms, KJP1, so I'm happy to support promotion. I've think you've done the right thing with Clarke (although as of now you have both volumes as 1979!), as I believe lists of sources are defined alphabetically, then sub-defined chronologically. The "See also" is a happy compromise (also!). ——SN54129 13:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
====Comments by ChrisTheDude====

- note 2 seems a bit meta to me. I'd be inclined to remove it, and in cases like Gunter Mansion just put something like "Comprises three separate listings" followed by the three refs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude - Many thanks indeed for dropping by. I’m afraid I may be a bit too old to get your meaning here. I went immediately to Urban Dictionary, which interestingly uses footnoting as an example of “meta”, [4], but I’m still not sure I get it. Are you basically saying it’s not necessary? KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that any note that says "this Wikipedia article....." doesn't really belong. It seems a bit "breaking the fourth wall". But maybe that's just me (BTW I do plan to do a full review of the article, probably tomorrow) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chris - Very much appreciate the impending review and look forward to responding. Re. the footnote; what I'm trying, but quite possibly failing, to do is answer the question - why does the number of Monmouthshire listed buildings as recorded in the sources not match the number of articles on Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire on Wikipedia? But, having worked on this for seven years, it's very possible I'm over-thinking it! KJP1 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TBH I doubt anyone is going to count the number of entries and go "now hang on just one minute" ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • I used to work in a building called the Aston Webb Building, and I never knew who Aston Webb was, but now I do :-)
Pleased to be of service!
  • Square brackets have gone awry in the Moynes Court entry
Done.
  • ....and in the Church of St Michael entry
Done.
  • King of Prussia public house is mentioned twice, and once you italicise the name but once not
Done.
BTW, if you do decide to keep note 2, "There is not an exact match between the number of Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire, (244), and the number of Wikipedia entries for these, (217)" doesn't need any of those commas....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done'ish. I know you'd prefer the note went, and thanks for not making that a deal-breaker, but I've amended in line with your suggestions.

ChrisTheDude - Much appreciate the review and glad that the list was of interest. It's always good to know that somebody actually reads the stuff one writes on here! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I very much enjoyed reading this article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Grade_II*_listed_buildings_in_Monmouthshire/archive1&oldid=950419327"