Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Palace of Westminster/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Palace of Westminster

I would like to say (perhaps at the risk of being accused of immodesty) that I am proud that if the nomination passes, this will be my 50th featured article. -- Emsworth 10:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I may copyedit later, to reduce the German Capital Letters and make the prose somewhat less artful, but an excellent summary. How does he do it? He must have too much time on his hands... I suppose the moral is to concentrate on one article at a time, rather than scattering your favours around willy-nilly, like certain others...-- ALoan (Talk) 13:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Congratulations. Phils 13:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Hallmark of quality. JuntungWu 14:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. First let me offer my congratulations to Lord Emsworth on another outstanding piece of work. For producing fifty featured articles he ought really to be given a peerage! (Oh, wait a minute...!) After reading through this article an area in which I feel it may be slightly lacking is the historical and architectural context in which the palace was rebuilt after the fire of 1834. There is some good description of the what the building is like, but not so much explanation of why it is so. I quote from Simon Schama's History of Britain (he talks before this passage about Pugin's role in the Gothic revival, which I note is linked from the article, but perhaps we need a bit more about how it applies specifically to the Palace of Westminster):

Just such an occassion delivered itself in 1834 when parliament burned down and a debate ensued about whether it should be rebuilt in the Gothic or neo-classical styles. The winner of the competition, Sir Charles Barry, had made drawings that amounted to an almost fantastic vision of a Gothic medieval palace; not, in truth, a structure that owed its precedent to anything truly medieval, but a decorated 'module' of pointed Gothic, extended indefinitely along the Thames as far as money and the needs of government dictated. It was a far cry, in fact, from Pugin's beautifully crafted fit between form and function. But the arguments rehearsed to justify a Gothic Revival parliament must undoubtedly have appealed to the romantic historian in Pugin. For they were all about acknowledging that the distinctive characteristic of the 'ancient' British constitution—its liberty and the rule of common law—was a medieval inheritance. The pediments and columns, the dominant squatness of classicism, were thus made to seem, somehow, not only 'foreign' but also the expression of authority, in a way which the pinnacles and pointed arches of Gothic building were not. Classicism was top down; Gothic was bottom up. Classical architecture was the visible declaration of hierarchy, built by slaves, in Ruskin's view; Gothic was about the community of craft, designed by free men. Inside a classical legislature, rulers would lay down the law; inside a Gothic parliament, they would make it accountable to the people. Such a building would not only be a dignified convenience to the law-makers; it would, by connecting them intuitively with the world that had produced Magna Carta, also ensure that they would legislate in a spirit of freedom, justice and virtue.

I apologise for making these comments without first working to incorporate something like this into the article itself, but I'd be interested to hear others' comments before proceeding. I am in no way, shape or form an expert on architecture, but I'd be happy to help add something to the article about this. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I have added information on why many individuals seemed to prefer Gothic architecture. -- Emsworth 21:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with the above. It needs more about the building's position in architectural history. It is one of the most important buildings of the gothic revival. And it took so long to build that by the time it was finished, the gothic revival had moved on somewhat. Barry and Pugin had something of a tempestuous relationships, and Pugin was not at all pleased with it in the end. In an edit I did a long time ago, I included the famous Pugin quote, "All Grecian, Sir; Tudor details on a classic body", which I think deserves a place back in the article. It seems to have been lost over the edits recently. Maccoinnich 20:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • The quotation has been added back. -- Emsworth 21:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I would like more about the pre-1834 Palace. But I am probably the only wikipedian who has the information and the inclination to add it. Dbiv 11:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Great article, but a quickly fixable objections; a) please can you mark which information comes from which of the references. b) Also, in the security article it would be good to see some comment about limitations of accessibility caused by security c) something about the big ugly concrete blocks might be worth mentioning d) the public galleries shouldn't just be a matter of "tourism", but also mentioned in terms of general public accessiblity and openness e) could we please have a daytime photograph of the outside? Mozzerati 21:05, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • I must object to objection (a), because the FA criteria only require that there be references, not that the article include paranthetical citations or footnotes. I feel that such citations only serve to clutter the article, and prefer not to use them. (b) Addressed. (c) I am not familiar with the blocks of which you speak; perhaps you would be kind enough to clarify? (d) I think that the Culture & Tourism section addresses public accessibility: it states that there is no casual access, that tickets are normally required, and that access is generally limited. (e) Addressed. -- Emsworth 21:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • a) I object^3, there is no request for footnotes, just for verifiability. There are many other suggestions, ranging from decent descriptions of the references (see Louis Riel) through invisible footnotes (facts from the article are listed at the bottom with page number and name of reference, references in as separate section) through HTML comments visible only to editors, name/test/page references as suggested in Wikipedia:Cite your sources and only finally ending at footnotes. Whilst I certainly encourage footnotes, I have no objection to any other method which allows verifiability which is a criteria directly referenced from the FAC criteria (point 1). Please note that i) the style guides about references encourage adding descriptions and ii) there is no exaclusive list of FAC criteria which are the only ones upon which to object, they should be "the best" work on Wikipedia, (point 3) and the best nowadays is quite seriously verifiable.

    b) thanks c) at the front (road side) of the palace are a layer of concrete blocks for crowd and car bomb control they are a big, ugly and very visible; see this BBC article for example. I was there recently, but I didn't think to take a photo of this. If you won't be able to go there soon, I can try again in May/June and promise to take a photo if you'd like one. e) great. Mozzerati 10:10, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

    • • a) If footnotes are not necessary, then I have no problem with the objection. I have added a section in HTML at the bottom of the article describing the sources used for each section. Generally, one source supplied all the info. for a particular section; specific exceptions are noted. c) Dbiv has been kind enough to add a description of the blocks. b, d, and e were previously addressed. -- Emsworth 12:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Great, almost everything is fixed, only one comment on d, I was trying to say it would be worth covering positive / open democracy / public access aspects of the public galleries, not just tourism. Whilst nowadays access via television and radio is available, previously the public gallery was the only way, and even now, most debates are not covered by most channels. One last comment, there was no coverage of the gardens. I've added something, but it's really just a list of names with some red links right now Mozzerati 16:28, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• support most objections covered. Excellent article. Mozzerati 16:28, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)