Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holkham Hall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Holkham Hall

This is a page about an English country house, I wrote sometime ago. Others have since done some copyediting etc. It is short! but it also seems to meet all the criteria for a featured article. Giano | talk 10:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. What's there is good, but it doesn't explain to me why this building belongs in an encyclopedia. For example, is it being used as anything besides a home today? Are tours available? Why was it notable when built/today? How many like it were built? Is it a famous landmark of a nearby town? History and architecture critique have their place, but can't make up the whole article. Meelar (talk) 20:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Holkham Hall's library had a significant collection of medieval manuscrpts many of which are now in the British Library (see description here). I don't know if they need to be mentioned here or in one of the owner's articles. (I'm not sure who collected them, if they indeed were collected by a single person. I'm inclined to suspect Thomas Coke, 1st Earl of Leicester since many of the manuscripts are of continental origin, and he collected a lot of art during his Grand Tour.) Otherwise Support: the statement "It is one of England's finest examples of the Palladian revival style of architecture, the severity of the design being closer to Palladio's ideals, than many of the other numerous Palladian style houses of the period." being a sufficient explaniation as to why the building belongs in an encylcopedia. Dsmdgold 13:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not to be flip, but, e.g., my house is one of the best examples of the "Sears Roebuck catalogue home" style in all of Illinois, and it's not notable. Significance should be explained better. Meelar (talk) 15:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Your house might not be notable, but there are tens of thousands Sears houses, but there are only dozens of Palladian revival mansions. Sears houses are all no more than about a century old, while the Palladian revival houses are all at least 200 years ols with some being almost 300 years old. Congrats on the cool house though. I would love to have a Sears house, they just aren't very common around here. (BTW, if your house is verifiably one of the best examples of a Sears home in Illinois, it would be, in my mind, notable enough for an article.) Dsmdgold 18:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not that great, just a "Starlight" model (quite small, actually, and also quite common). But thanks for the clarification on the Palladian revival mansions--the information that there are only a handful, relatively speaking, should go in the article for people who aren't familiar with this style of architecture or why it's important. That alone would do a lot to address my objections, although I'd still want to know more about the current status of the house. Meelar (talk) 20:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Guys please don't fall out! Thanks for the interest. Meelar I have made one or two small alterations to address some of your points. Could I draw your attention to this phrase from the lead - "It is one of England's finest examples of the Palladian revival style of architecture, the severity of the design being closer to Palladio's ideals, than many of the other numerous Palladian style houses of the period" Actually it's not a handful they are "numerous" click on Palladian (yeah, I wrote that one too -sorry!). Regarding your own house: it sounds great - I'll do it, just send me details and photos of your house I will write it up, it could make the front page - Seriously it is just the sort of architecture that need publicising, tomorrows antiques etc. (3 NZ architects have made FA so far this year for their retrospective work). However, I do think to state the difference between Holkham and a "Sears Roebuck catalogue home" may be overstating the obvious just a little. This house is notable only as an historic house with specialist architecture. It has a good, but for England, not overwhelmingly exeptional, collection of art and furniture. The page is titled Holkham Hall not Holkham Estate. The external link gives the advertising plug. Regarding Dsmgold's points I'm not sure, Blenheim Palace went into far more detail, almost anyone who had ever used a bathroom there had a mention, and that too failed FA. I've nominated this to see what is required. I quite like the page (Well, I wrote it) for its compactness, and I think completion. Giano | talk 22:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• (Back to the right margin)...No falling out, and I respect all the work you've put into the article. But it still needs a few things--

1. The location of the house--I had to click on a link just to find out it was near Norfolk. I am somewhat of a boob for having missed that...but the rest of my objections stand.
2. The significance of Palladian architecture needs to be explained. A short sentence or two about what it was and how it affected England would do great things in making this a stand-alone encyclopedia article--remember, these might be published on paper some day.
3. Is the house a major tourist attraction? What is its relationship with the surrounding area?
4. (optional) The name of the current inhabitants would be nice, but not necessary. Meelar (talk) 14:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• There you go [1] just for you Meelar. I think stating it is open to the public though does infer it is a tourist attraction Giano | talk 06:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks--I wasn't sure how to word that. Support. Meelar (talk) 15:14, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• This is what I think would most appropriately be described as demanding shrubberies ("one that looks nice... and not too expensive!"), e.i. unreasonable or irrelevant demands of approval. That you choose to complain about having to click a link to find very basic facts, and not even bothering to amend this ridiculously revision yourself, does not convince me that you are trying to pass on particularly constructive criticism. My knowledge of architecture is quite limited, but I have absolutely no problem with an artcle about a fairly unique country house being concerned mainly with the building itself, eventhough this articles does elaborate on other details as well. I would say that this objection should be considered non-actionable. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written, referenced and illustrated. Without trying to demand a shrubbery of my own (or requesting the largest tree you can find to be cut down with a herring), it's a minor scandal that there are no pictures of the interiors. Going by the descriptions in the text, the pictures of the facade must be almost dull in comparison... / Peter ^Isotalo 16:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry here Meelar but the first line of the page states the house is in Norfolk. The conclusion says "it is still and the family home of the Earls of Leicester of Holkham". That is the owners name, he and his wife/Countess live there. Regarding you're comment on Palladian architecture, that is (I think) the point of a "blue link". If one explains every blue link then an article would run in excess of what anyone one could reasonably be expected to read. I meant it by the way about your house, I had never heard of a "Sears Roebuck catalogue home", it would be great to right that up, its obviously well known in your part of the world, and would be interesting to do. Giano | talk 22:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sears Catalog Home Dsmdgold 22:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Dammit! Someone always beats me to do the best pages. 22:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I've always liked this sweetly-balanced short page, and don't think it would at all benefit from expansion. FACs seem to be getting longer and longer (mine too) and I do think this length is more inviting, as well as being in this case perfect for the subject. I did copyedit it once, but that was ages ago (December 2004) and pretty superficial at that. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)