Talk:Ham House/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 07:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to review this. Beginning initial read-through now. Tim riley talk 07:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a fine article, and has potential not only for GA but for Featured Article, in my view. But it needs a little work on the prose and some on the citations. Some of my suggestions, below, are just that – suggestions, with no requirement that you act on them if you disagree with them. I hope I have clearly indicated where my comments definitely require attention to meet the GA criteria (manual of style (MoS) issues, missing citations and a few quibbles about accuracy here and there.)

• General

• Duplicate links – an MoS issue: there should in general be only one link from the main text of the article to any other WP page. There are at present duplicate links to: acre; balustrade; cantilever; Catherine of Braganza; Coade stone; enfilade; ha-ha; hectare; James I; John Constable; John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale; Kingston upon Thames; Lionel Tollemache, 3rd Earl of Dysart; marquetry; scagliola; square mile; and Wilbraham Tollemache, 6th Earl of Dysart. These need to be reduced to one apiece.
• For date ranges (and for page ranges in the references) a hyphen will not do. The MoS requires en-dashes. Thus (random examples) 1679-1683 should be 1679–1683 and pp. 153-155 should be pp. 153–155.

• Lead

• I think I'd omit the definite articles in Elizabeth (Murray) Maitland, the Duchess of Lauderdale and Countess of Dysart and her second husband John Maitland, the Duke of Lauderdale – the first "the" makes it unclear whether we are talking about one woman or two, and the second "the" would look odd without the first one.
• the comfort of the Lauderdales' eminent guests. They decorated the house lavishly – you mean the Lauderdales decorated the house, but this actually says that their guests did.
• Duchess' death – strange form of possessive, where one would expect the usual Duchess's, which you use in the main body of the text.
• an Accredited Museum – very impressive, with capital letters and all (though not capitalised at its first mention in the main text) but this needs either a blue link or some brief explanation. Accredited by whom for what and why does it matter?

• Elizabeth and John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale

• likely due to the installation – two things here: first, "likely" is idiomatic in AmE use, but not in BrE, where "probably" is customary. Secondly, "due to" needs consideration: in AmE it is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
• at a time when tea was only beginning to be drunk in private homes – ambiguous: does it mean that tea in private homes was a novelty or that it wasn't drunk elsewhere? The former, I imagine, in which case it might be as well to redraw thus.
• suggests that the Queen Catherine of Braganza herself – could do with a comma: she wasn't "the Queen Catherine of Braganza", but "the Queen, Catherine of Braganza"
• Whilst this may have suppressed Elizabeth's lavish lifestyle – You are fond of "whilst", I notice. It occurs five times in the text. Authorities differ about the propriety of its use as a synonym for "although"; my advice is to be sparing with it: antique formations like "whilst" are apt to be obtrusive if overused.

• Lionel Tollemache, 4th Earl of Dysart

• John Carteret 2nd Earl Granville – comma before "2nd"?
• began repairing and commissioning new furniture – can one repair new furniture? I imagine the repairs were to the properties, but that isn't what this says.
• … largely neglected since the death of Elizabeth, therefore in 1730 he ordered… – it's asking a bit much of "therefore" to press it into service as a conjunction. It might smooth the prose to omit it and use a semicolon instead.
• We have two visits from our old friend "significant" in a single paragraph. See Plain Words: This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite … it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?' Your significant problems were probably "grave" or "serious", and one smiles at the idea of repairs signifying anything: I think you mean "major" or "extensive".

• Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart

• the 4th Earl had kept his own son short of money during his lifetime and he had consequently married without his father's consent – this seems something of a non-sequitur as it stands. Did he marry money?

• Wilbraham Tollemache, 6th Earl of Dysart

• John Bacon's iconic statue of the river god – is "iconic" used in some technical sense here or is it just a "hooray" word? If the latter, it should be cited.

• Louisa Tollemache, 7th Countess of Dysart

• MP John Manners – false title – it would be better as "John Manners, MP".

• Lionel Tollemache, 8th Earl of Dysart

• however he also predeceased his father – if you insist on a "however" here (unnecessarily, in my view) you need a comma after it.

• National Trust

• even though devoid of its contents, he could immediately see the splendour of the underlying building – dangling modifier. JL-M wasn't devoid of contents (whatever else he was devoid of) though that is what the sentence says.

• Architecture

• the façades visually giving the impression – as opposed to aurally? A slightly odd adverb.
• Not sure what the status of Ham House as "an accredited museum" has to do with its architecture. Is it relevant here?

• Introduction

• As a result of his close association with King Charles I – do we need the "King" here? We have met His Majesty earlier.
• working for the Crown – not entirely convinced (and I am, as it happens, the retired librarian of the Crown Estate) that "the Crown" is a suitable term for use in a 17th-century context. I don't recall the use of "the Crown" to mean the embodiment of the monarch/state before the 18th century, though I may be wrong. I think these 17th-century craftsmen were working for the king, not for the Crown.
• plaster craftsman Joseph Kinsman – loudly clunking false title.
• Ham House is now an Accredited Museum – if not explained in the lead, the term needs to be explained here.
• They furnished with high quality – at least one word is missing. If "they" means the rooms there is a missing "are", and if "they" means the families "the rooms" or some such is wanted.
• from England, Europe, Japan and China – England was and is in Europe. "Continental Europe" would do.

• The Great Hall

• Another outbreak of "significant". What did these paintings signify?

• The Great Staircase

• candles or candelabras – "candelabra" is plural already: no call to shove an "s" on the end.
• "There is no other architectural wood carving on this scale and of such sophistication surviving from the late 1630s." – Poor Rowell! This is the second time you've quoted him verbatim in the text without giving him an inline acknowledgement. Something like "According to the historian Christopher Rowell…" (first mention) and "In Rowell's view..." (later) would be a courtesy to him and would put the quotations in context for your readers.
• in the collection of King Charles I – another repetition of Charles's job title that we might perhaps dispense with
• the National Gallery, London… the Louvre, Paris – a blue link apiece would do no harm.

• The Round Gallery

• Prior to the upward expansion – "prior to" seems rather a fancy way of saying "before". There's another "prior to" later that could also do with putting into plain English.
• The London Plasterers' Company – is the capital letter wanted on the definite article? It isn't consistent with your usual practice elsewhere in the text, and indeed in the same paragraph.

• The North Drawing Room

• The hemispherical rosettes at the intersections are unusual, possibly unique. – this really could do with an attribution inline.
• the 1st Lord of Shelburne – wholly implausible title. I think you mean "Baron Shelburn" (he seems to have been the 1st Baron Shelburn of the second creation, but that's a level of detail I don't think your readers need or would thank you for.)
• due to their expense – as above, "because of" would be better in BrE.

• The Long Gallery

• 1638/39 to William Murray. In the 1638/39 Memorandum – the MoS bids us indicate date ranges with en-dashes and not slashes, thus: 1638–39 to William Murray. In the 1638–39 Memorandum. And does Memorandum need to be capitalised?
• Garter Robes – does "Robes" call for a capital letter?
• Queen Catherine of Braganza, wife of Charles II – as above, this way of writing her name makes her queen of Braganza not of England. And besides, you've already told us who she was.

• The Library

• The library dates from… – capitalised Library or uncapitalised library? Consistency, please.
• The Duke of Lauderdale added significantly to the contents – substantially, perhaps?
• two firescreens – the OED makes "fire screen" two separate words.

• The Queen's Apartments

• King Charles II's wife, Queen Catherine of Braganza – how nice to be introduced to you yet again Ma'am, and be told whom you are married to!

• Antechamber

• plaster craftsman Henry Wells – another false title in need of a definite article

• The Private Closet

• King Charles II at Windsor Castle … William III at Hampton Court – why give one his job title and omit the other's? Neither is needed by this stage in the text.

• The White Closet

• is described as "decorated with one of the earliest examples of Baroque illusionism to have been executed in a domestic interior in this country". – it would be good to say inline who thus described it.

• The Withdrawing Room

• (c. 1650–75) – I'm afraid the manual of style – Heaven knows why – insists on full date ranges for any period longer than two years: so this has to be (c. 1650–1675).
• it is embellished with ivory, pietra paesina (a type of naturally patterned limestone) and gilt bronze and brass. – A citation for this last bit of the sentence is wanted.

• Garden and grounds

• the sunken ha-ha – I think all ha-has are sunken.
• By 1972, the gardens had become significantly overgrown – "significantly" again! The overgrowth signified what, precisely? "Greatly" or "seriously" or some such is wanted here.

• In film and television

• This section comes perilously close to a "Trivia section", and in my view the article would be better without it. If you eventually take the article to featured article candidacy (and I hope you will) I think you will find strong opposition to these lists, but for now, if they are to be kept you must add citations from reliable sources for each entry to each list.

Tim riley re: this feedback - we included it in the article for 2 reasons (1) it was in the original article that was created many years before we began work and (2) it is an oft-asked question by visitors to the house, thus implying notability. I recognise that FA candidacy might require its deletion - I'd want to post that on the Talk page first, to gather feedback. Also - what constitutes a reliable source in this context. For instance, for "Never Let Me Go", I can find references to HH as a filming location in IMDB, a BBC article and the Wikipedia article for the film itself. None are academic-level sources - would any be considered reliable? Thanks.Isaksenk (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Isaksenk: We don't use other Wikipedia articles as a source (for fairly obvious reasons of circularity of referencing: article A cites article B and vice versa) and IMDB isn't regarded by Wikipedia as reliable, though I don't know why exactly. We don't necessarily look for academic-level sources: respectable newspapers are fine, and the BBC is most certainly a reliable source. I may very possibly be outvoted in my view that listing the movies and TV shows filmed at HH is trivial and you can make your case if we ever get to FAC. For GA it is not my business as reviewer to say the list is superfluous, and if it's properly cited I don't see that I can object to its inclusion, however naff I personally think it. [Afterthought: it's no bad idea to air the issue on the article talk page, but don't be disappointed if you don't get a big response either way. Some talk pages get a lot of comment and some don't. Tim riley talk 20:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC) ]

I've just been looking at the changes you have made to the text in response to my list of quibbles and I am hugely impressed at how quickly and how thoroughly you have been dealing with them. Onwards and upwards! Tim riley talk 20:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I share Tim’s loathing of “In the media” sections on houses. But - many readers find them of interest, and Ham House has made quite a few appearances in some notable movies etc. If they are to be retained, one alternative would be for a prose paragraph, rather than a, too-long, list. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk · contribs) and I followed such an approach at Cragside and it got through FAC. KJP1 (talk)

Isaksenk - I've created a prose version of the Filming location section, here. I have looked to source each entry to reliable sources. That has meant dropping two movies, and a few more TV shows. The problem is that Imdb isn't considered a reliable source, as it's user-edited, and many of the mentions of TV shows are on blogs, which have no editorial oversight, and which frequently lift content from...Wikipedia! I've also removed the horrible Imdb embedded links. Take a look. If you like it, just cut and paste it in. KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

KJP1 Thanks for making that effort, extremely helpful. I've adapted the article accordingly, and also managed find a reference to the Steptoe and Son program of 1964, which actually includes an image of the property. :-) Isaksenk (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Isaksenk - My absolute pleasure. In my opinion, it is a great improvement! KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, too. Tim riley talk 10:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Access

• The house can be reached by public transport, being in Transport for London travel zone 4 – couldn't it be reached by public transport if it were not in that zone? The implied causality is a bit odd.

• References and sources

• At first glance the referencing looks all right to me, but I'll need to make a thorough check before this review is concluded. For now I will just say that according to the MoS, however titles were laid out in the originals, we turn TITLES ALL IN CAPITALS into Title Case when reproducing them in Wikipedia – so that, e.g. "ABRAHAM VAN DER DOORT'S CATALOGUE OF THE COLLECTIONS OF CHARLES I" should here be "Abraham van der Doort's Catalogue of the Collections of Charles I", and so on.

Though he is not one of the main authors, my colleague KJP1 has contributed too many substantive edits to the article to allow him to review it, but as he knows a hundred times more about architecture and historic buildings and gardens than I do I am asking him to add any comments here that he thinks may be helpful to guide the main authors (and me). – Tim riley talk 12:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments on architecture

[Aside to TR - Tim riley, we may need to extend the usual 7-day turnaround for this. I know Isaksenk has limited availability, I'm away on business tomorrow/Thursday so won't complete my bit before the weekend, and we're making quite a lot of comments! KJP1 (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)]

No problem about that from my point of view. I haven't formally put the review on hold, and will refrain from doing to, to allow the time needed to complete the review and matters arising from it. Tim riley talk 09:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Tim riley KJP1 Thank you both for the support and suggestions - we are really all so grateful. I'll be working through the list top to bottom, starting with Tim's comments. And if I've any questions on specific points, I'll add them inline to the comments. Although my time is limited, I'm very motivated to work through these. I don't know if you saw, but HH was the setting for Antiques Roadshow on Sunday, and there was certainly a spike in page views! We expect there to be at least one more episode from HH during the AR season, so I'd love to get this article ship-shape before the next spike! :-) Isaksenk (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Would be pleased to add some thoughts on the building description. I am afraid these will come piecemeal, over the coming week. As per Tim, much will be by way of suggestions, rather than GA requirements. Including the first, KJP1 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC):

Tim riley - Update: Have now finished my comments on architecture etc. I know Isaksenk is working their way down the list. If there’s anything I can do in the meantime, e.g. a references check, just let me know. And many thanks to User:Hchc2009 for their offer re. a plan. That will be a great addition. KJP1 (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

General

• A plan - I think the article would greatly benefit from a plan. Something like the one that exists for Blenheim Palace. It’s not actually that complex an arrangement, but an illustration of how the, many, rooms are arranged would assist the reader. A former editor, who drew the Sissinghurst map, has very kindly indicated a willingness to do one, but they would need a template and I’ve been unable to find one online. Could one be made available for adaptation? The ground and first floor plans on pages 4/5 of the 1982 Tomlin guidebook would be ideal. Obviously, care would be taken to avoid any copyvio.

KJP1 Thanks for your inquiries re: a floorplan. Certainly I have a copy of the 2009 NT guidebook which contains a floor plan, but I can't imagine how that could be legally copied & published. Would an electronic copy from the NT itself be required? Thanks.Isaksenk (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I can easily produce an original, non-copyrighted plan of the house, Isaksenk - but I would need to know where to look for an accurate version/depiction in the first place. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

NB: I'll get a copy of that guidebook, Isaksenk, and have a go at it. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hchc2009 thanks for your offer - that's so very kind! You can also find a floorplan on page 40 of this source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23404800 I could also send you a scan of the 2009 guidebook plan for comparison, if that's helpful? Isaksenk (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Listing designations - I have a weakness for adding all the relevant listing designations, e.g. Powis Castle. Ham has about 10. They are actually easy to find, here [1], and you can use the Historic England template. But there's no requirement, certainly not for GA. If you like, I could do a paragraph.
• Subsection headings - somewhere, but I don’t know where, the MoS says not to use the definite article in sub-headings, e.g. “Long Gallery”, not “The Long Gallery”. Also, in the body text, I think the room names should be lower case, e.g. “library” not “Library”. I know Tim has mentioned this above, and he’s right about consistency. I got flack on this very issue at Sandringham House, and converted “The Saloon” into “Saloon” etc.
• National Trust Interim Report on Colonialism and Historic Slavery (September 2020) - this is obviously a contentious area. Nevertheless, in my view, mention should be made of the NT report, which references Ham House. The Ham entry has itself become controversial (some press coverage, although mostly DM, which is problematic). The entry is on p.73 of this, [2]. This may be useable.[3] And this is interesting, as a pre-BLM investigation. I shall read through to see if it references Ham, beyond the illustration, [4].

Lead

• “It was completed in 1610 by Thomas Vavasour - Is “completed” the right word, given that the Lauderdales’ extensions doubled its size? “The original house was….”?

Early years

• The Infobox has Robert Smythson as the architect, but this doesn’t repeat in the body, except in the Gardens and grounds section. Pevsner mentions John, and RIBA holds the design for the gardens by Robert, [5], which you mention. Two things: is Robert Smythson documented as the architect? He’s not in Mark Girouard’s Elizabethan Architecture, nor does Historic England name him in its listing record. Less importantly, our own article doesn’t suggest Ham House as his. Girouard’s earlier Elizabethan study, Robert Smythson & The Elizabethan Country House, suggests that he drew a plan of the house, (RIBA’s?), but not that he designed it. Does Rowell identify him as the architect? If so, he should definitely be mentioned in the body of the article. Conversely, I think William Samwell should be name-checked in the infobox.

William Murray, 1st Earl of Dysart

• Here I might mention Matthew Goodrich, artist and craftsman, who worked on the Great Staircase - and also at Holland House. A cite would be, Malcom Airs, The Tudor and Jacobean Country House - A Building History, 1998, Sutton Publishing, isbn 0 7509 1788 1, p=152. [6] John Summerson also mentions Goodrich’s close connections to the Jacobean and Caroline courts. John Summerson, Architecture in Britain: 1530-1830, 1955, Pelican History of Art, p=77. [7]

Elizabeth and John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale

• “The original plan was to create the Duchess’s apartments to the left…” - I found this sentence rather confusing. So they ended up with their bedrooms in each others apartments? That sounds like poor planning, or am I misreading it? I wonder if it could be clarified. I note that Tomlin suggests that the Duchess originally used the bedroom on the E side (Yellow Chamber/Volury Room) and subsequently swapped with the Duke, while retaining her closets. He also calls it "a somewhat awkward arrangement" (p=17).
• “…this was unusual and suggests that the Queen Catherine of Braganza herself had actually occupied it at least once” - first, the tone is getting a bit breathless - one of a number of instances where the language goes a bit beyond the encyclopaedic into the superlative. Second, is it that unusual? Quite a few grand Elizabethan/Jacobean/Carolean/Georgian houses had King’s and Queen’s Bedrooms, designed to entertain the monarch when they were on progress.

Lionel Tollemache, 4th Earl of Dysart

• “the Volury on the ground floor became another drawing room” - I don’t know what a Volury is. Is it a term unique to Ham? This suggests an explanation, [8], could it be clarified in a footnote, perhaps?

Louisa Tollemache, 7th Countess of Dysart

• “Louisa continued the patronage of John Constable…” - the “continued” implies the family had patronised him before, but I don’t think he’s been mentioned previously. Also, he should be bluelinked at first meeting.

KJP1 The 6th Earl was the first patron, so hopefully the additional text in his section now makes that clearer Isaksenk (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Architecture

• I think you need to summarise a few basics here: e.g. it is built of brick, with ashlar dressings, it is three storeys and nine bays, with a hip roof. Pevsner (p=475) gives you these.
• “on a traditional H-plan” - perhaps a footnote (as an aside, the Notes section is empty), a little on the H-plan. Summerson (see above) has an detailed explanation, pp=36-37. Thomas Cecil’s “Wimbledon House was built on a plan approximately resembling an H and was perhaps the first house of its size to use this plan in the form in which it was to become so general in the next three decades.”
• “The Caroline facade is loosely based…” - I’m getting confused here. Are we talking of Vavasour’s North front, strictly Jacobean, or the Lauderdales’ South front, strictly Carolean, rather than Caroline?

KJP1 Rowell very specifically refers to the south front as "Caroline" Isaksenk (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Isaksenk - The issue may just be Wikipedia’s definitions. We define Caroline as the reign of Charles I, 1625-49, and Carolean as that of Charles II, 1660-85. The South front dates from 1672-75, placing it squarely in the second period. However, our approach is to go with the sources and Rowell says “Caroline”. Let me ask around. KJP1 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• The exteriors of Ham aren’t perhaps among its most notable features, but maybe a bit more should be said. For example, its place in the development of the sash window, about which quite a lot has been written. [9], [10], [11], [12] - Tim can get access to the last one if you don’t have JSTOR. Somewhere, but I can’t remember where just now, there’s a study which demonstrates that sashes were an English invention, and references Ham House.
• Perhaps a mention of the medallion busts, in the north front and enclosing walls to each side? They are a pretty distinctive feature. (Pevsner, p=475)
• Accredited museum - I feel a little guilty here, as I think I put it in! But I do think it’s important as, arguably, the contents/interiors of Ham are as/more significant (sorry, Tim!) than the building itself. Perhaps a footnote explaining what accreditation means, based on this, [13]?

Interiors and collections - Introduction

• Cites - You’ve done an absolutely superb job on the cites - congratulations! But there are still whole uncited paragraphs, e.g. the third here. While this may be okay for GA, they will need citing for FA - the basic rule is that, as a minimum, each para. must conclude with a citation.
• Opinions - as Tim references above, you use quite a lot of qualifiers. In the, uncited, third para. here, we have; “fine collections”, “high quality cabinets”, “excellent condition”. I am less averse than some to these, it obviously is a “fine” collection. But the general approach is that such value judgements should be attributed, rather than presented in Wikipedia’s voice. Not so much a GA issue but, for FA, they may well be challenged with a “Says who?”.

The Great Hall

• “This room forms part of the original 1610 construction, which during the early 17th century…” - is “which” better than “and”?

Chapel

• For interest, do we know if it was a Catholic chapel?
• I might expand the description a little? And you could explain why the light levels are kept low, for example, “It contains a collection of rare 17th century textiles and their preservation requires that light levels in the room are kept low.

The Great Staircase

• “were designed not only as a means of gaining the upper floors but to serve as a grand processional route…” - I don’t think these are separate functions, and the “but” seems misplaced. Perhaps - “which were designed as a grand processional route giving access to the State Apartments on the first floor”?
• “the imperial splendour of arms and armour” - what is “imperial” about them?
• “Each panel is different, and displays different carvings on each side” - to avoid repetition, perhaps, “Each panel is different, with varying images on each face”?

The North Drawing Room

• You could link Mauritshuis.
• “commissioned by the 1st Lord Shelburne but possibly not used” - I don’t get the bit about his arms and what they indicate. Is it possible to clarify.

The Long Gallery

• Here, and elsewhere, there is a great deal of detail regarding paintings/furniture etc. I appreciate that the importance of the Ham Collection means there is a lot to describe, but I wonder whether some of the detail could be trimmed, in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. As an example here, the long description of the Auricular style is perhaps unnecessary, given the link?

The Green Closet

• Link tempera.

The Library

• I would link “Harleian auction” to Harleian Library. And I would certainly link incunabula!

Marble Dining Room

• I would link “diaper” to avoid confusion.

Gardens and grounds

• First para. - “the arched gatehouse at Petersham”, perhaps worth mentioning that this is a c.1900 Jacobethan addition?
• Smythson family - see point above. Their involvement needs clarifying.
• If not mentioned previously, and I don’t think they are, both John Slezer and Jan Wyck can be linked.
• Fourth para. - Pevsner suggests Humphry Repton had a hand in the 18th century landscaping (p=477). Probably worth a mention.

KJP1 No mention of Repton in Rowell, nor on the NT Repton page here. I think that the NT would have included it if there was some evidence, so I'm disinclined to mention it. Isaksenk (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Isaksenk - It is indeed an odd one. I can’t find an online reference yet Cherry explicitly says it is mentioned in Repton’s Fragments, and Dr Pevsner is very rarely in error. I shall keep looking. KJP1 (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Notes

• As mentioned above, this section is currently empty.

Conclusion

• That’s it from me. You and your team have made massive improvements to this article, and can be proud of your efforts. It is comprehensive, well-written, finely illustrated, and, very fully, cited! As such, it is of great value to the reader, and to Wikipedia. I am pretty confident that it will make GA, although the decision lies with Tim R as reviewer. I also think it has huge FA potential. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Concluding quibbles from Tim

There are a few minor matters remaining:

• MOS:LEAD: There should be nothing in the lead that is not a summary of something in the main text, and the mention of "accreditation" should be glanced at in the lead and explained fully in the main text. At present the only mention is in the lead.

Tim, Isaksenk - Have dropped a cited mention of Accredited Museum status into the Listing section, and removed the cite from the lead. See if it works for you both. KJP1 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Works fine for me. Tim riley talk 18:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• "in consideration of the service done by the late Earl of Dysart…." – this should not be italicised: the quotation marks suffice on their own.
• "referred to as 'the Queen's Bedchamber' in 1674 – more single quotes where the MoS calls for double.
• At the front of the house an 'Advance' which extended …" – three things here: (i) double quotes, not singles, please; (ii) what is an Advance? (iii) should it be capitalised?

I’m not sure about an Advance. Advanced works are ancillary defences running out from a castle’s main walls. I think it means a projecting bay which originally extended out from the North facade above a porch. All of this was removed, and Pevsner remarks on the modest impact of the main door, in relation to the general grandeur. The answer might be to replace “an ‘Advance’ which extended…” with “a projecting bay which extended…”. Not my call, obviously. KJP1 (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

KJP1 The term is a quote taken from the builder John James, who was in charge of repairs. I've tried to clarify in the text but if it still makes no sense I can try again.Isaksenk (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• painted c. 1675 by Sir Peter Lely" – Lely could do with a blue link. And we try not to give people titles they hadn't yet got at the time we're talking about, and Lely wasn't knighted until 1679. Ditto for the mention elsewhere of him in 1648.
• References:

• 17, 238 and 242 – hyphens should be en-dashes.
• 147 and 152 – the latter is a duplicate of the former and should be merged with it.
• 150 – "National Portrait Gallery. National Portrait Gallery" – so good they named it twice. Just one "National Portrait Gallery" will be ample.
• 226 and 234 would be duplicates if "garden/Garden" were capitalised consistently. The two refs should be merged.

• Sources:

• en-dashes wanted for Airs, Brett and Rothwell.
• for the Brett title I'd put a full stop after the c in "c1636".
• for Bracken, Cripps, Pritchard, Roundell, Strong, Walpole and Ward, please check the capitalisation. Where the cover, spine or title page of a book is all in caps it is usually best to use title case when listing it here (rather than sentence case à la WorldCat). Sentence case makes no sense for, e.g. Roundell's book – it is inconceivable that she thought of the building as Ham house, and we can see from Google Books that Cripps capitalised "Sealed Knot", as one would expect.

Those, I think, conclude my quibbles. I have only one comment on KJP1's points, above: I agree about capitalising the names of rooms etc in the text, and would go as easy on the Capital Letters as possible, but I recognise that it isn't a precise science. For example, to me the north drawing room sounds like a mere description whereas the Round Gallery sounds like a name – but that's just me, and if the National Trust capitalises all the rooms and features I'm not arguing.

Once the few points listed above are attended to I can proceed to the ribbon-cutting ceremony. Tim riley talk 09:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Tim, As with your comments, Isaksenk has been amazing in responding so quickly. I think there is only one outstanding issue, and that’s of minor importance. Rowell describes the South facade as “Caroline” in style. For me, and for Wikipedia, the Caroline era covers the reign of Charles I, (1625-49), while the reign of Charles II (1660-85) is described as Carolean. James Curl, in his Oxford Dictionary of Architecture, takes this approach. As the South front dates from the 1670s, I think that makes it Carolean, not Caroline. But what does it matter what I think! We go with the sources, not with editors’ opinions, and Rowell uses Caroline. I have sought Giano’s view, as he knows far more about architectural styles than I do, but it absolutely isn’t a deal-breaker. KJP1 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

As one who has been twitted for getting "Caroline" and "Carolingian" mixed up some years ago I am not sticking my head above the parapet. I shall rely on your advice entirely on this point, KJ. – Tim riley talk 19:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Promoting

Well, we have arrived at the finishing line. I wonder about the change of "died childless in 1821", to "died without heir in 1821" (someone inherited, surely?) but I leave that thought with you, and otherwise I am gratified and mightily impressed by the improvements to the text. I agree with KJP1 that this article now has "FA" written all over it, and I shall be disappointed if it doesn't turn up at FAC in the near future. I warn you that at FAC you won't just have two pussycats like me and my friend KJ to deal with, and the nitpicking will be severe, but it will be worth the effort. Meanwhile, my job here is to decide on the Good Article nomination, and it gives me considerable pleasure to promote the article:

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

KJ – many thanks for your expert input (and next time you're in London let's try to fit in a joint excursion to Ham House). Isaksenk and colleagues – warmest congratulations. On to FAC now! – Tim riley talk 19:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Tim riley great news! I really appreciate all the support and guidance you and KJP1 have provided. Yes, I'll be happy to work on getting this article to the next level but will wait until we hear whether a plan might be available. In the meantime, if you fancy a guided tour of HH, just le me know! Isaksenk (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)