Template:Did you know nominations/Wanlip Hall

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Victuallers (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wanlip Hall, Charles Grave Hudson, 1st Baronet, Charles Thomas Hudson Palmer, 2nd Baronet[edit]

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

Wanlip Hall
Charles Grave Hudson, Charles Thomas Hudson Palmer, 2nd Baronet

)

... that Charles Hudson and Charles Palmer were the first two baronets of Wanlip Hall (pictured)?

Comment: QPQ = Slowly pulsating B star QPQ pending. Fixed faults and alts welcome

Created/expanded by Victuallers (talk). Self nominated at 12:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

Sadly, these articles have quite a few problems.

The articles on the Baronets were incorrectly named, so I have moved them per WP:NCPEER to Sir Charles Hudson, 1st Baronet and Sir Charles Palmer, 2nd Baronet.
The prose reads like an early draft, needs quite a lot of copy-editing. For example:
- It has too many short sentences (e.g. "The older hall was demolished. It was replaced by the building illustrated.", His father was the Dutch consul. Charles was the second and last child and only son.")
- Different aspects of the narrative are intermixed in ways which may then hard to follow. For example Sir Charles Hudson, 1st Baronet#Life has the history of the building jumbled in with family matters, and Sir Charles Palmer, 2nd Baronet#Life leaves it unclear who was born on was born on 17 December 1773. Further down that page, I am confused by "After his father's death in 1813, his 1812 will was successfully challenged after it was considered by the Law Lords." Why is it being considered by the Law Lords before it was challenged?
- More staccato sentences in Wanlip Hall: The older hall was demolished. It was replaced by the building illustrated. The imposing hall had been built in about 1750 by the Palmer family. They extended and improved this imposing building that stood beside the River Soar
The Wanlip Hall article relies heavily on the leicestershirevillages.com website. I am unsure about the reliability of that source, and suggest trying the Victoria county history (see this search).
I also wonder about the reliability of http://www.bigenealogy.com/index.htm

If those issues are resolved, I can do a more detailed check, but a major rewrite would be needed first. Sorry that that this review is so critical, but while these articles clearly benefit from a lot of research, they still too raw for DYK. Most of the material is there, but it needs reworking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review BHG. I shall continue to work on them, but I don't imagine I will find the time to do this on my own. So unless someone comes forward and assists then please assume these three are withdrawn. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This kind of close criticism of the writing is way beyond what's required for DYK. EEng (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@EEng: see WP:DYKAR: "There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress."
Isn't it more helpful to explain why it appears to be a work-in-progress than to just say "needs copy-edit". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Correcting pretty-bad writing isn't a requirement for DYK. EEng (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@EEng I wouldn't describe these articles in those terms. Just raw, and needing developing beyond note form.

But your interpretation of the DYK rules doesn't my reading of WP:DYKAR#D7. Can you point me towards anything which would support your view? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As it happens there's an ongoing discussion just now which (I hope) will end with a change from "not a work in progress" (which is way to elastic, IMO) to "not under construction", which I think has quite a different flavor. See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Let.27s_take_a_break_while_GC_thinks_about_it (the bit just above the linked point). EEng (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@EEng Hmm. It seems rather unfair to chide me for following a rule which you have been seeking to change, without much support for your view so far. I will add my piece to that discussion at WT:DYK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not chiding you. Look at my further comments in the thread you opened and you'll understand. EEng (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You can debate aspirational policy elsewhere I think. I don't have enthusiasm for these without some collaboration which sadly doesnt appear to be here. All the best. Victuallers (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)