Wikipedia:Peer review/Burning of Parliament/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Burning of Parliament[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
On 16 October 1834 the ancient Palace of Westminster, the medieval royal palace used as the home of the British parliament was destroyed by fire – a result of a cock up of monumental proportions. Still, it resulted in the magnificent replacement provided by Barry and Pugin, now a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

This article has undergone a recent re-write, with FAC the planned next step, if reviewers agree. – SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Lead
  • "The Palace of Westminster, the medieval royal palace used as the home of the British parliament was destroyed by fire of 16 October 1834." -- Are we missing a comma after "parliament"?
  • "The blaze was caused by the burning of small wooden tally sticks which had been used..." -- "...which were used"?
  • "The sticks were destroyed in a careless manner..." Is there a careful way to destroy something then? Do you mean "disposed of"?
Background
  • "The Palace of Westminster began..." -- The construction can begin, is that what you meant?
  • "Successive kings added to the area: Edward the Confessor built Westminster Abbey; William the Conqueror began building a new palace; his son, William Rufus, continued, including Westminster Hall, which was started in 1097" -- This sentence tails off at the end and doesn't really make sense. Rufus continued with what? Building a new palace like his father? From "including" onwards there seems to be a few missing words causing some confusion too.
  • "By 1245 the King's throne was present in the palace, signifying that the building was the centre of English royal administration" -- By 1245 the King's throne was present in the palace, which signified that the building was at the centre of English royal administration"?
  • "In 1295 Westminster was used as the venue for the Model Parliament, the first English representative assembly, called by Edward I; he called..." -- called/called repetition.
  • "...began to meet separately, and by 1377 the two bodies were entirely separate." -- Separately/separate
  • "St. Stephen's Chapel remained largely unchanged until 1692 when Sir Christopher Wren, at the time the Master of the King's Works, was instructed"...by who?
  • " This was followed by an 1878 report from fourteen architects warning against the possibility of fire in the palace; signatories included John Soane and Robert Adam.[13] Sloane again warned of the dangers in an 1828 report" -- 1828 report/1828 report -- CassiantoTalk 03:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16 October 1834
  • "The glow from the burning, and the news spreading quickly round London, ensured a large crowd turned up to watch events." -- "The glow from the burning, and the news spreading quickly round London, ensured that a large crowd turned up to watch events."?
  • "Among them, The Times reported,"-- Did the actual paper turn up, or a reporter from? I would say: "Among them was a reporter for The Times who noticed that there were "vast gangs of the light-fingered gentry in attendance..."
  • "Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish philosopher, was one of those present that night, and he later recalled that" -- Should this have a colon at the end? We are also missing an opening quote mark.
  • "who oversaw the upkeep of royal palaces, including the Palace of Westminster." -- palace/palaces. Maybe swap "palaces" for buildings? I should imagine that the royals don't own anything smaller than a palace.
  • "By 9:00 pm three Guards regiments arrived on the scene. Although they assisted in crowd control, the move was in part a reaction of the authorities to their fears of a possible insurrection" -- Not quite understanding the latter half of this sentence from "the move" onwards.
  • Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which amended..." -- Amendment/amended
  • "Westminster Hall was regarded as safe..." -- by who?
  • "...and had gone by around 3:00 am, by which time the fire near the Hall was nearly gone," -- Two birds with one stone here: gone/gone repetition, but if you loose the last "gone" and replace it with extinguished we've solved it entirely (it sounds a lot better to boot!)
  • Ah...that is until I saw the second "extinguished".
  • "its robing rooms and committee rooms" -- rooms/rooms
  • " the Law Courts, were damaged and in need of restoration. -- Is "in need of restoration" a little redundant?
  • Possibly, but I wanted to clarify that these were salvageable, rather than being another part lost entirely. – SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British standard measurements, the standard yard and standard pound" -- standard/standard/standard
  • "the measurements had been created in 1496 by Edward I" -- Relevant? CassiantoTalk 08:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it gives an indication as to the historical - let alone practical - value of their loss. I've trimmed it back to just the date tho. - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done, bar the two commented on. This is all excellent stuff, as usual, and I'm looking forward to the next batch. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath
  • "...committee, who met in private, heard numerous possibilities of the cause of the fire" -- "...as to the cause of the fire"?
  • "The committee thought it unlikely that Cross and Furlong had been as careful in filling the furnaces as they claimed," -- "...as they had claimed"?
  • "which was entry 64, identified by a portcullis—the entry of the..." -- entry/entry. CassiantoTalk 12:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New Palace of Westminster
  • "After it was built the water was pumped out and the land allowed to dry" -- "After it was built the water was pumped out and the land was allowed to dry"?
  • "... it has proved to be problematic" -- "has" is redundant here.
  • "Barry's wife laid the foundation stone on 27 April 1840, in a building that consisted of 11 courtyards with accommodation for 200 people, with 1,180 rooms, 126 staircases, 2 miles of corridors, 15 miles of stem pipes with 1,200 stop cocks." -- Two "with"'s sounds kind of odd.
  • " In 1852 the Commons was finished and both Houses sat in their new chambers for the first time, and Queen Victoria first used the newly completed Royal Entrance." -- Ouch! The double conjunction really doesn't work here.
Legacy
  • "The fire became "single most depicted event in nineteenth-century London ... attracting to the scene a host of engravers, watercolourists and painters"." -- "The fire became the "single most depicted event in nineteenth-century London ... attracting to the scene a host of engravers, watercolourists and painters"?
  • "UNESCO describe the site as being "of great historic and symbolic significance", in part because the it is.." -- oops!
  • "The decision to use the Gothic design for the palace set the national style, even for secular buildings, which also "drew attention to the close bond between Church and State at Westminster". -- Who said this?

Everything else looks fine and was a joy to read. As with Tim, I'm not too bothered about the title change and quite like the current one; It's far better than the alternative ones offered below. Please let me know when this gets elected (sorry) to FAC. CassiantoTalk 23:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff: many thanks for your thoughts and efforts - it looks much tighter now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Wasn't going to - feel free to nom it yourself - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unknown on the source. I'll drop a line on the uploaders Commons page (thankfully they are still active), but I have a plan B for FAC of this, or a similarish one from the DNB. I'd prefer the more contemporary version in his uniform, if possible tho. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492 I,presume this means that it's probably not PD? (Or if it is, there is insufficient information to use it as such?) – SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Crisco. I've covered them all except one, which I'm chasing the uploader for further details. Cheers, as always - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments

  • a publicly run Brigade - why the capital B?
  • to get a good view, and many took to the river in whatever craft they could find or hire to get a better view - view / view
  • What caused those casualties?
  • 34 of the competitors - shouldn't start sentences with numerals
  • The Westminster site covered eight acres, and the palace site partly consisted of unstable, marshy ground. - site / site
  • 2 miles of corridors, 15 miles - worth including the metric? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I'd be happy to change the title (the least satisfactory part of the article, I think), as only a few of the sources refer to the event as such. Part of the problem here is that there is no single, common name which can be applied to cover the event. I know that this article was created in 2003 under this name, but it very quickly became a list of other parliaments that had burnt down, before being dragged back to this subject.
Do you have any suggestions for a possible new name, or new format for a title? - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize there were so many burnings of parliaments, otherwise I'd've suggested Burning of the Parliament Buildings in London or something. How about Burning of British Parliament, 1834? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few listed in one of the older versions of the page (I had no idea either!) The current title focusses on Parliament, but the law courts were also destroyed and it was still a royal palace, so we could go for something more precise - 1834 fire of the Palace of Wetminster or Palace of Westminster fire, 1834? - SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think readers would most likely search for? Or what format do you think would be easiest to link to? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...or, "The Biggest Explosion in Parliment; until 2002, when John Prescott had the Brussel Sprout Curry option from the Commons canteen"? CassiantoTalk 12:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea CT! It looks like Cassianto and Tim Riley thinks the current title is suitable, so we may as well leave it in place unless others raise objections. – SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of a better title. When I used to work for a living as Librarian to the Crown Estate I found deciding the key words for titles and indexing among the hardest parts of my daily tasks. One looked for the most reader-friendly terms, but so far as this article is concerned Mr A would look for Fire, Mrs B for Parliament, Miss C for Burning, Sir D for Palace of Westminster and so on. I think when there is no obvious key word, as here, it's probably best to go for the plainest title, which we have here. Tim riley talk 22:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the issue wasn't finding a "better title", though, but disambiguating it from another one. The Montreal one was the only "Burning of Parliament" I knew about until finding out about this article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only other title I can think of is "Palace of Westminster Fire" which, it has to be said, still comes as a less preferred title to the current one. Is there anyway the Montreal article can be disambiguated away from this one? CassiantoTalk 23:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is by having Montreal in the title, but that doesn't help when someone looking for it comes across an article called "Burning of Parliament". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I suppose you could differentiate it to the other article by adding "in London" to the existing title? Failing that, my offering above causes no confusion whatsoever as there is only one Palace of Westminster. CassiantoTalk 01:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be satisfied with anything the Brits thought appropriate, but another thought crossed my mind—the Canadian article uses "Parliament Buildings", likely out of consciousness of a difference between "Parliament" the institution that of the building(s). Perhaps that's an argument in favour of "Palace of Westminster"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though in that case we'd probably want a "Burning of Parliament" dab page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim[edit]

First lot – more to come:

  • Lead
    • "competition established" – you have inadvertently omitted "catastrophically" or "lamentably" between the words. Today's front page boy User:KJP1 will be able to provide the necessary adjective (and may have wise things to add about the rest of the article, too.)
  • Background
    • "The Palace of Westminster began to be constructed" – a bit jagged. Perhaps "The Palace of Westminster originally dates from…" or some such?
    • "Cnut the Great" – our WP article admits that he is better known as Canute, and I think you should consider piping accordingly.
    • "Westminster was used as the venue" – just "was the venue"?
    • "the machinations needed to implement change" – not at all keen on "machinations", which I take to mean plotting and conniving, rather than bureaucratic bumbling
  • 16 October 1834
    • "Black Rod's box alight" – I believe you've worded it thus to provoke ribald comment from Sarastro, Brian and other cricketers.
    • "The glow from the burning, and the news spreading quickly round London, ensured that a large crowd turned up to watch events" – you've told us before that there was a large crowd. At this point in the text I think you'd be wise to say that crowds continued to turn up, in increasing numbers, or something like that
    • "Lord Broughton, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests" – As the former Librarian to that organisation I hardly know where to start with this but here we go: (i) he obviously wasn't the Commissioners plural, (ii) he was the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, (iii) he wasn't Lord Broughton at the time: he was Sir John Hobhouse until kicked upstairs in 1851. (We were still plagued by a Hobhouse in my day: all present made the sign to ward off the evil eye when she entered the building. I must stop for the moment and revive myself with drink.) More anon. – Tim riley talk 19:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • continuing:
    • "were involved in breaking down doors" – "involved" sounds slightly shady: perhaps "helped break down doors"?
    • "All of the original Acts" – in BrEng (as opposed to American) I don't think the "of" is wanted.
  • Aftermath
    • You and I have discussed capitalisation offline, but Cabinet/cabinet didn't come up. It looks a bit odd to have cabinet ministers and Cabinet meeting in the same sentence.
    • "they instructed" – "they ordered"? And I have my doubts about capital C Committee in the same sentence.
    • "read by Lord Brougham" – I think we need to be told here that Brougham was Lord Chancellor rather than any old peer
    • "With no English secular Elizabethan or Gothic buildings to use as inspiration" – eh? There were and are quite a few English secular Elizabethan or Gothic buildings. Do you mean "Uninspired by any English secular Elizabethan or Gothic buildings …"? (That would also eliminate the infelicitous repetition of "inspiration").
    • "to complete the necessary pen and ink drawings required" – either necessary or required, but not both, I think.
    • The same sentence falls at the last hurdle: he asked Pugin, who was such-and-such, but then you don't say what he asked him.
  • New Palace of Westminster
    • "a stonemasons strike" – arguably wants a possessive apostrophe
    • "Royal Entrance" – I boggle a bit at the caps for this
    • "ongoing revisions" – nothing actually wrong with "ongoing", but I think "continual" would be more pleasing
    • "finish the Victoria Tower, although Barry's death in May that year was before the building work was completed" – the "although" seems odd, as if refuting a causality that doesn't seem to be there. I'd be inclined to make this "finish the Victoria Tower; Barry died in May that year before the building work was completed" – or am I missing a point?
    • "overseen by Barry's son, Edward" – "his" rather than "Barry's", possibly?
  • Legacy
    • "The fire became single" – missing a definite article before "single", I think.
    • "initially based in Chancery Lane; the body, now based in Kew, has since been renamed as The National Archives" – feel free to tell me to take a running jump, but I'd footnote all this bit. I don't think the location of the PRO or its amalgamation into TNA is of central importance to your narrative.
    • "the cost of re-building" – hyphen wanted?
    • "Westminster Palace" – the Palace of Westminster is the only proper term, in my view
    • "said that the building is in need of extensive repairs" – as you're using indirect speech "is in need" should be "was in need"

That's my lot. I prodigiously enjoyed this article. I'll watch with interest to see how you finally decide on the best title, and I wish I could offer a helpful suggestion. Faute de mieux I find the present title okay, though I take the points made above. You'll alert me come FAC, natch. Tim riley talk 20:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent stuff - all grist to the mill, and the article is now much improved thanks to your keen eye. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BB[edit]

First instalment (to halfway through the fire section):

Lead
  • "The competition established the Victorian gothic style of architecture as the national norm, even for secular buildings." That strikes me as a little too assertive and perhaps overstated – the national norm?
  • That came from Pevsner (see the Legacy bit below, c. reference 100) - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but surely he meant the norm for public buildings, stately homes etc, rather than just "buildings". Not having seen the quote, though, I can't say for ertain. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returned to the library! I'll grab it again on Tuesday and clarify the situation. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full quote reads "It (the competition) established Gothic as the national style even for secular architecture and even on the largest scale and it introduced to official recognition the Elizabethan style as a debutante." I think Pevsner is indeed saying that Gothic became the national style. Pevsner's view is supported, for example, by Georg Germann, Gothic Revival in Europe and Britain: Sources, Influences and Ideas, p.68, "(Barry's designs) established Gothic Revival as the principal style of the century". Personally, I'd use Gothic Revival rather than Victorian gothic as I think the former is the more commonly understood architectural term. It is also the term used in the UNESCO report on the site. A possible rewording below.KJP1 (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In 1836, a competition for designs for a new palace was won by Charles Barry. Barry's plans, developed in collaboration with Augustus Pugin, incorporated the surviving buildings into the new complex. The competition established Gothic Revival as the predominant national architectural style and the palace has since been categorised as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, of outstanding universal value.
Many thanks, KJP. Your suggestion now incorporated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. As @Tim riley: knows, my lack of attention to detail makes me a poor peer reviewer but very pleased to assist. Incidentally, some of us could usefully reflect on why the committee determined that the style for rebuilding should be Gothic: "The peculiar charm of Gothic architecture is in its associations; these are delightful because they are historical, patriotic, local and intimately blended with early reminiscences." KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it was an odd decision to make, especially given Gothic is as foreign as the Italianate they were trying to avoid – and just as odd to leave the decision to a group of five amateurs! - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "classed" and "classified" in close proximity, last line.
Background
  • "The Palace of Westminster began to be constructed..." → "Construction of the Palace of Westminster began..."
  • "added to the area" – I think I'd say "buildings" or "complex" rather than "area" which is a bit vague.
  • "which included Westminster Hall, which..." – repetition
  • "By 1332 the barons—representing the titled classes—and burgesses and citizens—representing the commons—began to meet separately" – too many confusing mdashes. I'd rather see parentheses, thus: "By 1332 the barons (representing the titled classes) and burgesses and citizens (representing the commons) began to meet separately"
  • "to slow the progress of the fire" – drop "the"
  • "In the late eighteenth century a committee of MPs reported that there would be a disaster if the palace caught fire". I think "predicted" rather than "reported", which is bland
  • Soane becomes Sloane (unless they are different people)
  • You have "usefulness of each tally" and "usefulness of the tally system" in close proximity
  • Would it be possible to indicate the dimensions of a tally stick? I see a reference to measurements in the next section, but that seems to relate to the height of piles of tallies rather than to their actual size
16 October 1834
  • I wonder if "firelighter" is the best job description?
  • That appears to be his title, rather than just a description. - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No one" is two words, no hyphen. But I'm a bit worried about the apparent editorial tone of the sentence: "What no-one appreciated on the day was that the heat from the fires had melted the copper lining of the flues and started a chimney fire." I'd reword this less dramatically, e.g. "Those tending the furnaces were unaware that the heat from the fires had melted the copper lining of the flues and started a chimney fire."
  • "Although these would have been repaired as the child exited" – I can't visualise what you mean here. How would they have been repaired?
  • "The first flames were spotted at 6:00 pm, under the door of the House of Lords, by the wife of one of the doorkeepers; she entered the chamber to see Black Rod's box alight, and flames burning the curtains and wood panels, and she cried out that "The House of Lords is on fire!" Too long, two ands, and you can't have a "that" in front of a direct quote. As we are an encyclopaedia rather than a tabloid, I'd lose the quotes and the exclamation mark.
    • Dejected to find my speculation above unfounded in re Black Rod's box. Tim riley talk 22:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For 25 minutes the staff inside the palace panicked and tried to deal with the blaze..." – I rather doubt that they did these things simultaneously for 25 minutes. Perhaps after initially panicking they tried to deal with the blaze? Consider rewording.
  • "now highly visible" – redundant words, since you've just said the fire could be seen from Windsor

I shall return Brianboulton (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As always, many thanks for your input, and I look forward to the next instalment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

16 October
  • "crowds continued to turn up in increasing numbers to watch the events" – I think "spectacle" rather than "events"
  • "By 9:00 pm three Guards regiments arrived on the scene" → "At 9:00 pm three Guards regiments arrived on the scene"
  • "as was the unrest from..." – needs to be "as were", since you follow with two examples
  • "At around 1:30 am the tide on the Thames..." – perhaps the last three words unnecesary? Where else would the tide be?
  • Is "hugely effective" sufficiently encyclopaedic? We tend to curb our enthusiasm.
Aftermath
  • "More malicious rumours were also reported, when the Prime Minister was anonymously sent a letter claiming it was an arson attack." This sentence has me flummoxed. First, does "more" mean "an additional amount of", or is it qualifying "malicious" and therefore meaning "nastier"? In either case, what were the earlier "malicious rumours"? Then, what does "when" mean here? Rumours were reported when the PM received an anonymous letter? Would I be right in thinking that the intended meaning is something like: "Other rumours began to circulate; the Prime Minister received an anonymous letter claiming that the fire was an arson attack"?
  • "34 of the competitors petitioned parliament at the selection of Barry" – probably "against" the selection?
New Palace of Westminster
  • Having read this section, my impression is that it is a little too detailed for an article about the burning. OK, it's relevant to know in outline terms what took the place of the old palace, but there's a rather too much information here. I would recommend using about half this much text, and making it a subsection of "Legacy". After all, the new palace is the most enduring legacy of the burning. To give you some idea of what I mean, I would reduce the first paragraph to something like this.

"In June 1838 Barry and colleagues undertook a tour of Britain to locate a supply of stone for the building, eventually choosing Magnesian Limestone from the Anston quarry of the Duke of Leeds. Work started on the building on 1 January 1839. The stone was badly quarried and handled, and with the polluted atmosphere in London it proved to be problematic, with the first signs of deterioration showing in 1849, and extensive renovations required periodically."

I believe that the subsequent paragraphs could be likewise condensed.

  • First swing of the axe has reduced is considerably, but I'll have a re-read in a day or so to see if there can be any more further trimming. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • "Although Dickens deplored the cost of rebuilding parliament..." – Did he? The only previous recorded comment from Dickens related to the preservation of the obsolete tally system. I'd personally lose these words; whatever Dickens said hasn't got anything to do with the Palace of Westminster's status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. I might also slim down the various encomiums to the new building, on the same grounds as indicated above – they tend to shift the focus of the article away from the burning.
  • £3 billion? Bugger that! Large tent, couple of thousand max.

Very absorbing. I've done a few prose tweaks that you may want to check. Otherwise the article is well on its way. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks, Brian. All done, bar the "New Palace" section, which will need a little more careful thought. Thanks again - all much tighter now. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Will look at this later this evening.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • "After a competition to find a new design for the palace, the plans of Charles Barry—who was aided by Augustus Pugin—incorporated the surviving buildings into the new complex." -do we know when this was? When did they decide the competition?
  • " The replacement palace has since been categorised as a UNESCO World Heritage Site " -since when?
16 Oct
  • "hugely effective" -not too keen on that, can you think of an alternative?
  • All the original Acts of Parliament from 1497 survived, as did the Lords' Journals, all of which were stored in the Jewel Tower at the time of the fire. then "In the words of Shenton, the fire was "the most momentous blaze in London between the Great Fire of 1666 and the Blitz" of the Second World War.59" -Doesn't feel quite the right place to say this. I'd either start a new paragraph and flesh it out a bit or move "In the words of Shenton, the fire was "the most momentous blaze in London between the Great Fire of 1666 and the Blitz" of the Second World War" down to the start of the Aftermath. In fact actually in reading on I'd move that part to the beginning of Legacy, would fit much better.
New Palace
  • eight acres -convert?
Legacy
  • "The decision to use the Gothic design for the palace set the national style, even for secular buildings,[100] which also "drew attention to the close bond between Church and State at Westminster", according to the political and social historian Dr Roland Quinault.[101]" -this is rather awkward, the "even", "which also" and "according" jar a little, can you reword?
Notes
  • Did Dickens really write "he" -"[t]he -looks a bit odd around just the t.
  • Link for Chimney Sweeps Act?

Very little to complain about. looks in terrific shape, it's about as English a subject as you can get too, a vital article for British heritage and history, so glad to see it of such quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KJP1[edit]

New to this, so apologies if you'd have preferred that I just actioned my minor CEs. KJP1 (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However you want to do it is fine by me - I'm always extremely grateful to hear people's opinions at PR however they want to give them! - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "In 1295 Westminster was the venue for the Model Parliament, the first English representative assembly, summoned by Edward I; during his reign he called sixteen parliaments, which sat either in the Painted Chamber or the White Chamber." Missing words?
  • "The result was something that one visitor to the chamber called "dark, gloomy, and badly ventilated, and so small ... when an important debate occurred ... the members were really to be pitied." Is the first part a little convoluted?Perhaps - The result was described by one visitor to the chamber as "dark, gloomy, and badly ventilated, and so small ... "
  • "Over the next three centuries the palace was enlarged and altered to become a warren of wooden passages and stairways." I don't think that was the intention of the alterations. Perhaps - "enlarged and altered, becoming a warren of ...."
  • "The facilities were so poor for members" - and for everyone else. Perhaps - "The facilities were so poor..."
  • "that Joseph Hume, a Radical MP, called debates in 1831 and 1834 to find new accommodation for the House to sit.." Do you call debates or call for them, or call for X in them? And did Hume want accommodation for the House solely to sit in? Or to work in? Appreciate the double meaning of sit here but perhaps - "that, in debates in 1831 and 1834, Joseph Hume, a Radical MP, called for new accommodation for the House, while his fellow MP William Cobbett..."
  • "He decided against giving the sticks away to parliamentary staff to use as firewood,.." I appreciate it's Dr Shenton's view but I do wonder how she knows? Christopher Jones doesn't say it and, to my mind, it matches too closely Dickens's sarcastic suggestion as to how the tally sticks might usefully have been disposed of. But there is a source...
  • Shenton goes further in the book, saying that some of the previous disposals had involved giving the sticks away for firewood. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16 October 1834
  • The first para. has two instances of "later reported". Could the first be replaced with something like - "Weobley checked in on the men throughout the day, claiming subsequently that, on his visits, both furnace doors were open,.."
  • "Another witness to events, Richard Reynolds,.." - "the events" ?
  • "she entered the chamber to see Black Rod's box alight, and flames burning the curtains and wood panels, and she raised the alarm." Suggest deletion of the second "she". Have avoided any Riley-inspired innuendo.
  • "By the time Braidwood and his men had arrived on the scene, he realised that the House of Lords had been destroyed." The destruction had occured, whether or not Braidwood realised it. Perhaps delete "he realised that"?
  • "..and he had his firemen cut away the part of the roof that connected the hall to the already burning Speaker's House, and then soaking the hall's roof to prevent it catching fire." Is there a switch of tense in "soaking"? Perhaps "soak"?
  • "by which time the fire near the Hall was nearly gone, although it was still in situ towards the south of the complex." Perhaps - "by which time the fire near the Hall was nearly out, although it continued to burn towards the south of the complex.
  • "by which time the new shifts of police and soldiers relieved their colleagues." This sentence repeats "by which time" from the preceding sentence and I think it also has a redundant "the". Perhaps - "The firemen remained in place until about 5:00 am, when they had extinguished the last remaining flames and were relieved by new shifts of police and soldiers." No - that suggests the police and soldiers relieved the firemen. So - "The firemen remained in place until about 5:00 am, when they had extinguished the last remaining flames and the police and soldiers had been replaced by new shifts."
  • "The House of Commons, along with its library and committee rooms were also devastated" - Missing comma after rooms?
Aftermath
  • "they ordered a list of witness to be drawn up,.." "witnesses"?
  • "a committee of the Lords of the Privy Council sat to investigate the fire." This is, indeed, exactly how Jones describes it but I'm unsure as to why it isn't simply a committee of the Privy Council. Are/were the "Lords of the Privy Council" a recognised sub-set. One for Tim, I think!
  • Sending up the batsignal for Tim riley for the point of order! - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here, Commissioner Gordon. The phrase didn't leap out at me when I did my read-through, but on rereading I agree with the point made by KJP1 (or KJP, to those of us on tutoyer terms). To the best of my bureaucratic knowledge there has never been an entity called the Lords of the Privy Council. The Privy Council was and is awash with lords, and conceivably the committee in question was recruited entirely from the House of Peers, but without doubt it suffices to refer to "a committee of the Privy Council". (I forget who it was who declined appointment to the office of Lord Privy Seal on the grounds that he was neither a lord, a privy nor a seal, but I digress) – Tim riley talk 23:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many thanks, Mr Speaker: trimmed as your joint lordships demand. - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The committee, who met in private, heard numerous possibilities .." Should this be "The committee, which met in private.." and I wonder if "theories" would suit rather than "possibilities"?
  • "The committee issued their report.." - "its report"? Getting a bit out of my comfort zone here.
  • "This body determined in which style the new construction should be built, and in June they decided that either Elizabethan or gothic styles should be used. The commission also decided that although the original outline of the palace did not have to be used,.." Three points. First, would it be useful here to include the Germann quote as to why they chose a Gothic style? I can do the necessary reference if you think it would. Secondly, did the Commission actually specify Gothic or Elizabethan? I don't have access to Rorabaugh, and Barry certainly did use an late Gothic style that Germann considers verges on Elizabethan, but to have made the distinction between the two would have displayed considerable architectural sophistication on the part of the Commissioners. Later - checking Jones, I see he specifies "Gothic or Elizabethan" so ignore my query, although it would be most interesting if Rorabaugh has a primary source for the distinction. Thirdly, there is a double "be used". Perhaps the second sentence could be reworded to something like - "The commission also decided that although competitors would not be required to follow the outline of the original palace, the surviving buildings..."
  • Which Germann quote was that - the "established Gothic Revival as the principal style of the century" one? - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each entry was to only be identifiable by a pseudonym or symbol." Perhaps - "each entry was to be identifiable only by a pseudonym or symbol."
  • "The commission presented their recommendation in February 1836, which was entry 64, identified by a portcullis—the emblem used by the experienced architect Charles Barry, who won £1,500; Barry's original competition drawings are now lost." This sentence packs a lot in! And the use of "emblem" doesn't match the use of "symbol" in the previous, related, sentence. Perhaps - "The commission presented their recommendation in February 1836; the winning entry, which brought a prize of £1,500, was number 64, identified by a portcullis — the symbol chosen by the architect Charles Barry." You could then reference the fate of the drawings - see below.
  • "to complete the necessary pen and ink drawings, which are now lost, he employed Augustus Pugin, a 23-year-old architect who was, in the words of the art historian Nikolaus Pevsner, "the most fertile and passionate of the Gothicists". This amendment would incorporate the detail re. the fate of the original drawings. On an unrelated point, would Pevsner be more commonly known as an "architectural historian"? But perhaps POV on my part.
  • I think both art and architectural, but probably primarily the latter. - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uninspired by any English secular Elizabethan or Gothic buildings, Barry had visited Belgium to view the town halls prior to drafting his design;" A few points. I don't have access to Port - is he the source for this claim? I think we would need a direct source for the suggestion that Barry was unable to find any inspiration from English sources. Pevsner suggests that Barry's visits were later than his/Pugin's undertaking of the original drawings and that the purpose of the visits was to see how "secular Gothic could be reconciled with pitched roofs" (Bradley & Pevsner, p=216). Lastly, "visited Belgium to view the town halls" sounds a little odd to me. And all of them? Perhaps - "visited Belgium to view examples of Flemish civic architecture..."
  • Yes, that bit was from Port: "In consideration of the lack of English secular models, he toured Belgium to study the famous town halls." There's another reference in the biography written by his son, which can be seen here, which says that there were "... but fragments of Gothic palaces to be found in England". - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Barry planned what Christopher Jones,..." would this section sit better in the next?
  • "reports of the estimates vary from £707,000[75] to £725,000, with six years until completion of the project." To me, this reads slightly strangely - conflating, as it does, cost and time estimates. Perhaps - "reports of the cost estimates vary from £707,000 to £725,000, with an estimate of six years as the completion period for the project." Though this also sounds a bit clumsy.
New Palace of Westminster
  • On a general point, I tend to agree with BB that this section could be a little more concise as it is less directly related to the burning of the old palace, the subject of the article. Whether it should be a sub-section of "Legacy", I'm a little less sure. That said...
  • "The Westminster site covered eight acres (3.2 ha), and the palace site partly consisted of unstable, marshy ground." Are they two different sites? Perhaps - "The Westminster site covered eight acres (3.2 ha) of partly unstable, marshy ground."
  • "After it was built the water was pumped out.." Missing comma after "built"?
  • "In June 1838 Barry undertook a tour of Britain..." This jars chronologically with the previous sentence which talks of building work commencing in 1839. Perhaps - "The previous year, Barry had undertaken a tour of Britain..." or "The previous year, Barry undertook..."
  • "consisting 1,180 rooms, 126 staircases, 2 miles of corridors, 15 miles of stem pipes with 1,200 stop cocks." This clause repeats "consist" and is, I think, missing an of after "consisting". Dare I suggest - "comprising 1,180 rooms..."
  • "after their deaths their sons publicly argued". Perhaps - "after their deaths their sons argued publicly.."
  • "In Pevsner's view, "[t]he secret" - I haven't a clue as to the Wikipedia convention, but this strikes me as very odd. All that has been done is to uncapitalise the "t". Would commonsense not permit either the use of the upper case, or the removal of the "[]"? Otherwise, I think it is just puzzlingly for the reader as it stands.
  • "which changed the character of his design so much he refused to enter the chamber again." I'm not quite sure this fully conveys the magnitude of Barry's gesture. Perhaps - "which changed the character of his design so much that he refused ever to enter the chamber again."
  • "In 1852 the Commons was finished and both Houses sat in their new chambers for the first time; Queen Victoria first used the newly completed royal entrance." Does the final clause sit a bit oddly? Perhaps - "In 1852 the Commons was finished and both Houses sat in their new chambers for the first time, the Queen arriving for the State Opening through the newly completed royal entrance."
  • "The same year Barry was appointed a Knight Bachelor,[87][88] while Pugin suffered a mental breakdown and spent six months in Bethlehem Pauper Hospital for the Insane; he left the hospital shortly before dying in September.[76]" Do ignore, as this is pure stylistic POV, but I wonder if their cruelly contrasting fortunes are captured in "In the same year, while Barry was appointed a Knight Bachelor, Pugin suffered a mental breakdown and, following incarceration at Bedlam, died at the age of 40."
  • "The final cost of the building came to around £2.5 million.[93][k]" This reuses "final" from the previous sentence. Perhaps "total" or just "The costs.."
  • "The decision to use the Gothic design for the palace set the national style, even for secular buildings,[100] which also "drew attention to the close bond between Church and State at Westminster", according to the political and social historian Dr Roland Quinault.[101]" While Dr Quinault is certainly right, I don't quite get the relevance to the legacy of the fire. Unless he is talking of the Gothic styles of the Palace and the Abbey? Again, stylistic POV which you should probably ignore, but I'd go for the other Georg Germann quote we mentioned earlier in the discussion on the lede. Perhaps - The architectural historian Georg Germann wrote that the decision to require the palace to be Gothic in design "established the Gothic Revival as the principal style of the century."

Well, that's my lot. Apologies again for the lapses into POV and if I've not followed Peer Review conventions. KJP1 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely nothing for you to apologise for all all: an excellent set of comments which I have largely adopted. The only ones I haven't followed are the couple (maybe just one) with a question to clarify, and those for the last section, which I will take into account whe I am doing my BB-suggested trim of the section. Thanks again! - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly looks as if he did a better job than me LOL. Perhaps in future you can ask KJP instead to review it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Burning_of_Parliament/archive1&oldid=1138560207"