Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Little Moreton Hall/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 13:04, 18 December 2012 [1].

---

Little Moreton Hall

Little Moreton Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Little Moreton Hall/archive1

Nominator(s): George Ponderevo (talk), MarchOrDie (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This article on one of England's most iconic Tudor black-and-white half-timbered mansions was greatly expanded by Giano back in 2007. Since then it languished somewhat, until MarchOrDie and I decided to make a final push to bring the article up to the FA standard. I hope you'll agree we've at least made a decent fist of it. I've been in email contact with Giano during this recent expansion of the article, and I think we've implemented pretty much all of his suggestions. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I did work on this page years ago and didn’t get too far because for all its glory, it is ridiculously under documented. Architectural historians have tended to largely ignore it, perhaps for the pseudo-intellectual reason that not only is it quite vernacular, it’s too ‘chocolate boxy’ and ‘olde worlde.’ Pevsner (who described it as 'vulgar') being a prime example. In my opinion, Britain has never really appreciated it’s half-timbered architecture which surprisingly is one of it’s only true indigenous forms. The nominating editors have done an amazing job finding references and rewriting the page. The other problem I found with writing up this page was the lack of interior photographs, that’s now rectified (although I see one has already disappeared, hopefully it will return). Perhaps, for balance, the final section needs to be bolstered out a little, but what’s the point of empty waffle? So while this page may be relatively concise compared to others on England’s historic houses, this is probably the largest writ-ups that the house has anywhere – Wikipedia should be proud of it. For these reason, I’m supporting it for FA. Giano (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the support Giano, and for all your help during the rewrite. The image of the Great Hall had been renamed, so that's been fixed now. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments by Cwmhiraeth - as it happens I visited this house a fortnight ago!

A very well written article. I could only find three points to query. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• "There is no evidence that the moat served any defensive purpose, and as with many other moated sites was probably intended as a status symbol." I think this sentence would be improved by including an "it".
  • Done, good catch. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• "The first-floor landing leads to a passageway between the Guest's Hall and the Guests' Parlour" - Is the apostrophe in these two rooms intended to be treated differently? "Guests' Hall" appears in the next paragraph.
  • Done, good catch. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• "The other two mills were used to drive water-powered hammers at the Moreton family's iron bloomery in the east of the estate, which they had owned since the late 15th century." - I'm not clear what precisely had been owned since the 15th century.
  • Not done, as I couldn't immediately think of a better wording. It should be clear from the context that it was the bloomery rather than the estate. Nevertheless I am open to a different wording to eliminate confusion here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As MarchOrDie says, the family owned the bloomery, which was on the estate. But I can see there's a potential ambiguity there, so to try and clarify I've rewritten that sentence: "The Moreton family had owned an iron bloomery in the east of the estate since the late 15th century, and the other two mills were used to drive its water-powered hammers". Better? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That's good. Changed to support above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read through and for the support Cwmhiraeth. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by ClemRutter

• Comments by ClemRutter (copied from article talkpage) Leadlight

Lede

1. As a German speaker my prose is flawed by a tendency to start every sentence with a subsidary clause. I see this here. # German grammar Now fully restored, the house is.... then At its greatest extent, in the mid-16th century, the Little Moreton Hall estate occupied.... and other examples

   It's not a flaw unless it's overused, like so many other things. The context of that "Now fully restored ..." sentence is in a paragraph that begins "The house ..." and has one intervening sentence. My feeling is that to begin the sentence with another "The house ..." is a little dull and repetitive. Similarly, I see absolutely nothing wrong with "At its greatest extent ...". Elegant variation rules.

2. -08; the remainder was constructed in stages by successive generations of the family until around 1610. Surely this should be - 08. The construction continued until around 1610; successive generations of the family supervising further stages. Citation needed?

   "1504–08" is correct as per WP:MOS. That the last major expansion to the house was completed in 1610 is cited at the end of the third paragraph of the History section, so why do you feel it should be cited here as well? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

3. façades around three sides of a small cobbled courtyard A façade is a face of a building not a courtyard. Is façade the WP approved spelling of facade? Cobbled or cobble paved courtyard- the meaning of the former being ambiguous.

   There is no "WP approved" spelling, but either "façade" or "'facade" is correct. The façades of the buildings define the courtyard; what the sentence is saying is that the courtyard has the facades of the north, south and east ranges on three of its sides, which I think is correct. I don't see any ambiguity in "cobbled courtyard", but just in case there's any uncertainty I've added a wikilink to cobbled. The least I say about "cobble paved courtyard" the better. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

4. At its greatest extent, in the mid-16th century, the Little Moreton Hal surely extent which occured in the mid-16th Better however to say The Little Moreton Hall estate which was at its greatest extent during the mid-16th century.... Is extent the best word to express the concept of largest? Now we move onto the the iron bloomery with its cornmill, orchards and gardens and water-powered hammers. because that is the effect of the word with. Citation needed? wlinks needed to water powered hammers, cornmill types of orchard

   I think both of your suggested alternatives lack a certain polish, and I'd rather stick pins under my fingernails than adopt either of them; I see absolutely nothing wrong with the present wording, and "extent" is indeed the best word in this case. But you do have a point about the bloomery with its orchards and so on, so I've switched the ordering around to "contained a cornmill, orchards, gardens, and an iron bloomery with water-powered hammers". All of this material is cited in the Gardens and estates section, so why do you feel it needs to be cited here as well? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

5. The gardens were abandoned until their 20th-century recreation. Recreation or re-creation? I am troubled by abandoned until. To abandon is final- were the gardens responsible for their own re-creation? were left in an abandoned state until the 20th-century, when they were re-created using published 17th century designs? Perhaps. Citation needed?

   Should be "re-creation", well spotted. Now fixed. I don't agree with your assertion that abandonment implies finality. You may, for instance abandon your car for shelter elsewhere during a flood or snowstorm, but that doesn't mean you have no intention of going back to recover it once conditions have improved. No of course the gardens weren't responsible for their own re-creation, and I don't understand why you even ask the question. And once again, why are you asking for a citation in the lead for material that is properly cited elsewhere? George Ponderevo (talk)

--ClemRutter (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

My obsession with repeating cites comes from accessing WP by mobile phone where often only the lede is read- technically I am sure you are right. I stand by were abandoned being final but suggest lay abandoned is not. Gardens recreating themselves was an active/ passive issue. I had not looked at the png when commenting on courtyards and facades- would the phrasing open courtyard make the geography clearer? Does the png (on that file)- need the source of the information to be cited "After the drawing by A.N.Other, in the ..... book"? ClemRutter playing devils advocate (talk)08:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with "lay abandoned", so I've changed it. Yes, the base for the plan should have been included in the image description, which I've now updated. The courtyard isn't actually open, as there's a hedge on the west side running from the west range. I'm afraid I still don't see a problem with the facades, but perhaps MarchOrDie will have a view on this. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just a suggestion for a compromise: "....with three asymmetrical wings (or even 'ranges' if they were not built at the same time) forming a small, rectangular cobbled court." Facades (with and without a cedilla) is technically the correct term and can be used, but does suggest a more formal, classical elevation. Court is also correct for a partially and fully enclosed courtyard - as in cour d'honneur and forecourt; allthough, again, courtyard is technically correct too - especially if a hedg, wall or fence forms the fourth side. Giano (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I could go with that. Thanks for the suggestion, which I've incorporated into the article. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Good compromises; I think the article now looks better as a result. Great work. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Image check - mostly OK (old, PD-own, geograph), only one point (all Done):

• File:Little_Moreton_Hall.png - needs "source" info in image summary: what base map was used to create this map?
  • replaced with 2 new maps - still OK. GermanJoe (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Optional (unrelated to FA): consider using the ""geograph" template for all geograph images. Doesn't add much, but looks a bit clearer. GermanJoe (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  OK, done that. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, updated accordingly. It's a very interesting building with a lot of history apparently. GermanJoe (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

And thanks for the image check. It's rather a magical little building, and I hope we've been able to do it justice. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by ClemRutter 2

• Comments by ClemRutter

General Comments

Mee (1938) and Coward (1903) refer to LMH interchangeably as Moreton Old Hall

It is useful that Bramall Hall is already an FA. Doing a quick comparison, BH includes Present Day as a subsection of history- and that would suggest that Present Day and Hauntings could be moved up and demoted into subsections- as they surely should not have equal prominence to a description of the house. BH also gives little or no architectural detail in the history section using it to describe the family- (POV I think they should have) but LMH is a bit sparse on the family detail.

Little Moreton Hall was known as Old Moreton Hall during the period it was rented out to tenant farmers, from the 1670s onwards. I've added that to the lead. I wouldn't have written Bramall Hall quite the way it's written now, and I'm perfectly happy with the structure of this article as is. One significant difference is that there's relatively little known about the Moreton family, who don't let's forget only lived in the house until about 1670. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

History

1. -The Moreton family's roots in the area of Little Moreton... where is Little Moreton- this is the first time it is mentioned. Perhaps ...in the Congleton area... ?

   Propose we just say "...in the area".

2. -appears in the historical record in 1271- where? what?

   Already referenced to here and I see no problem with this.

3. -The earliest part of the house is the north range. East Wing- none of these terms are shown on the png. Neither is there a compass arrow or scale. Does this merit a second derived map LMH_in_1510.png? If this were an svg I could knock one out from the description.

   Could we just manage some captions on the existing file?

   I'll add a compass pointer to the graphic, but as is conventional, north is at the top of the floor plan. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

   On reflection, I think the exising captions are adequate. North being at the top is a sufficiently widepread convention that we can manage without a compass arrow, although one would be nice. Likewise a scale, but I am actually ok with the existing map if it cannot be improved by the author. A map in this type of situation is really just a schematic plan.

   I've added a compass needle to the bottom right-hand corner of the graphic anyway. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

4. -The earliest part of the house is the north range. Built for William Moreton (died 1526), it comprises the Great Hall and the northern part of the east wing, which date from 1504–08 .... Germanism: looks better as - The earliest part of the house is the north range which was built between 1504 and 1508 for William Moreton who died in 1526. It comprises the Great Hall and the northern part of the east wing. ....

   I agree, will change.

5. Comment: as this is the history section we should be answering the What? Where? when? Why? and How much? I don't see many answers to the why question. Heraldry is interesting here T.A.Cowards (1903) Picturesque Cheshire p255 mentions the coats of arms of the Moretons, the Breretons of Brereton, the House of Lancaster as Moreton was under the Baronry of Halton.

   Sounds like there is scope for more research; however, frustratingly often on historical matters, the "why" questions remain unanswered. I trust that if there was a well-documented reason for the house being built, we would have it in the article. I agree that it's worth a further trawl of sources to come up with something, as it's an important question.

   There's no record of how much the house cost to build, and as to why. presumably as a home for the Moreton family? George Ponderevo (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

   I thought that might be the case. We can only make this article as good as the best sources which exist. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

6. -Little Moreton Hall was requisitioned to billet Cromwell's soldiers. When? No date has been given to place the ECW putting one here would fix it.

   This is referenced to Lake, Jeremy; Hughes, Pat (2006) [1995], Little Moreton Hall (revised ed.), The National Trust, ISBN 978-1-84359-085-9 and if there's a date in the source I agree it would be worth adding it.

   LMH was confiscated by the Roundheads in 1643, which I've added to the article. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

7. -They tried unsuccessfully to sell the entire estate, and disposed of several parcels of land. unhappy about use of qualifier unsucessfully followed by an and which refers to a successful sale. Would They tried to sell the entire estate, and unsuccessful, disposed of several parcels of land.?

   I agree the wording is sub-optimal (I wrote this bit) but I don't think the proposal is any better. Can I propose They tried to sell the entire estate, but could only dispose of several parcels of land. ?

8. - By 1847 most of the house was unoccupied- unhappy about the repeated us of By. Could you say- In 1847 most of the house...?

   Agreed, this is better.

9. - -was used to store coal. Why? Was this for domestic use or for use in a neighbouring silk/cotton mill? For which company? Do we know which pits it came from- Poynton was a mining village. If it is the latter we have interesting link up with the industrial development of East Cheshire.

   This is sourced to Lake & Hughes (2006), p. 42; I doubt there will be more detail on the coal in the reference, but if there was it would be worth including.

   There is absolutely no evidence that the coal was used for anything other than the Dale family's domestic consumption. The only industry on the estate (the iron bloomery) had closed in the early 18th century. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

10. - "an object of romantic interest" among artists.lk- additional factoid from Coward (1903) Amelia B. Edwardes made LMH the scene of her story ¨Lord Brackenbury¨

    I agree this would be worth adding. It seems to have been a significant book.

11. -Elizabeth Moreton, an Anglican nun- maybe dates, and a wlink to her order.

    This is also sourced to Lake & Hughes (2006), p. 42. If the info is in the source I agree it should be added.

    Note e already explains that Elizabeth Moreton had become a Sister of the Community of St John Baptist in 1853. I've moved it to just after the word "nun", as if ClemRutter missed it at the end of the sentence then I suppose others may as well. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

12. and may have been responsible for the insertion of steel rods to stabilise the structure of the Long Gallery- surely -and may have been responsible for the insertion of steel rods that stabilise the structure of the Long Gallery

    I prefer the original wording here.

Superstition and haunting.

1. -nd shoes" were found to have been hidden in the structure- WP prefers- nd shoes" were found hidden in the structure

   I agree this is a better wording.

--ClemRutter (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Some interesting suggestions there Clem. Let me look through them in more detail and I will try to answer properly this evening (UTC). --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I looked at your suggestions in some detail. I will implement the easy ones immediately. There are some which would depend on further research and for those I will have to depend on George's good offices. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I've now done the easy ones. I'll wait to see if George wants to recheck those sources. It may be that there is nothing well-sourced to be said about the other points, though I agree they were good questions to raise. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Support Comment - only 1-2 clarity issues and a few nitpicks. Close to support.

• lead "Little Moreton Hall is a moated 15th and 16th-century half-timbered manor house 4 miles (6.4 km) southwest of Congleton, Cheshire." ==> WP:OBVIOUS, "in England."
• again "Little Moreton Hall is a moated [15th and ]16th ==> i am confused: the article states, that the pre-1500 theory is disproven. And the immediately following sentence has 1504-1508 (16th century) as earliest part.
• "The house remained in the possession of the Moreton family [for almost five centuries] until 1938" ==> "more than four centuries" (less than 450 years).
• "...published in the [17th-century]." ==> no hyphen
• First floor "Its "massive" carved consoles have been dated " ==> why the quotes for "massive"? Seems like a common term (maybe "heavy" or "solid" would be better terms?)
• Present day "The house is now fully restored, and is open to the public from April to December each year." => would be better with an absolute date, if available. "Now" is prone to get outdated. Since when is the house considered fully restored?
• "Services are held in the Chapel every Sunday [at 3:45 pm] from April until October." ==> is clearly too detailed. Remove the exact time (more fitting for a travel guide).
• Superstition and haunting ==> i have my doubts on the scientific research and if there are really any ghosts there :), but ok as a closure of the article, i guess.

A very interesting read, i especially liked the detailed background history and site description. GermanJoe (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like George has already dealt with all of these. Thanks to both you and Clem for your excellent reviews. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  I think the only one I haven't dealt with is the question of when the house was considered to have been "fully restored". The answer is 1992, but I need to find a good source for that. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  Done now I think. The last major restoration was 1990–92, now mentioned in the final section. I don't see any reason why it should also appear in the lead, as "now" is "now". Malleus Fatuorum 04:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  As for the ghosts, all that can be reported is what people claim to have seen and heard. I make no judgement. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

(indent) I appreciate, that there are still some stylistic and minor content details in discussion, but that doesn't significantly detract from the overall quality of the article imo. Changed to support above. GermanJoe (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by ClemRutter 3

• Comments by ClemRutter

General Comments House and grounds

1. The most prominent feature of the grounds is the moat and island- yet this is not discussed in the Gardens and Estate subsection. Instead it is under house. Strongly feel the para

   The house stands on an island surrounded by a 33-foot (10 m) wide moat,[6] which was probably dug in the 13th or 14th century to enclose an earlier building on the site. There is no evidence that the moat served any defensive purpose, and as with many other moated sites it was probably intended as a status symbol. A sandstone bridge leads to a gate house in the three-storey south range.

   should be moved to Gardens and Estate. This gap in the text should be filled with

   The gate house in the three-storey south range is approached over a sandstone bridge that crosses the ornamental moat.

   (more later).

   • I can't agree with that, as the house is built on the island and is only accessible via a bridge across the moat, which is therefore an important aspect of the house's topology. But I'll be interested to hear what MarchOrDie thinks. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

2. The opening sentence has no merit- in fact is a filler. In more detail:

   The 100-year construction of Little Moreton Hall spanned the period of the pre-Reformation, post-Reformation, Elizabethan, pre-Renaissance and Renaissance, but except for some Renaissance decoration such as the motifs on the gatehouse, and Elizabethan fireplaces, the house is resolutely medieval in design.

3. There is no such concept or architectural periods as pre-Reformation or post-Reformation architecture. Yarwood uses the time Periods- perpendicular Gothic 1375-1509/ Tudor 1509-1603/ Stuart 1603-1660/ Restoration Stuart 1660-1774.(Yarwood|1967|p=vii|ps=) Indeed the Renaissance preceded the English Reformation. The hall itself fell almost entirely within the Tudor period

   Nonsense. Malleus Fatuorum 05:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

   Like why? Seriously have you a reference that uses pre-Reformation or post-Reformation architecture for architecture, roughly I date Renaissance as 1501 -1625, and the English Reformation from about 1529/1531? --ClemRutter (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

   If you re-read that bit you'll see that it's talking about historical periods, not architectural styles, and I wouldn't have added that to the article if I didn't have a good source for it, Nikolaus Pevsner no less. I quote: "So there is pre-Reformation and post-Reformation work here, Henry VII and Elizabeth, pre-Renaissance and post-Renaissance". Note specifically his use of the term "work", which includes details such as the decorative motifs on the exterior timber framing. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

4. However it is true that the house is resolutely medieval in design.
5. I have considered what should replace the first part of the sentence and consider the strongest solution is to omit the fluff and start with

The house is resolutely medieval in design.

No. Part of the house's interest is that it was built over a period of 100 years, and thus contains elements of many architectural styles, ranging from medieval to Elizabethan. Malleus Fatuorum 05:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What we are both trying to say is that: LHM is important because was built over the 100 year period that saw a change in the use and and functioning of a house. The house is resolutely medieval in design, but with the century was modified to reflect the changing fashions and styles, it spans the transition. The period of its construction is loosely described as Tudor-but during that period society moved from church dominated to secular, the society changed from feudal to one of rural commerce with yeoman farmers:the open hearth great hall with screens and solar became irrelevant to the lifestyle of the yeoman family, who aped the changes in the aristocracy and a new model emerged. Existing structures were modified to accommodate the new life style and tastes. LHM is one of perhaps 10 surviving houses of this period and notable for its half-timbered construction.(Yarwood|1967|p=167|ps=)at a time when timber was becoming scarce and expensive. Later Tudor houses have become referred to as Elizabethan, and feature a long gallery as a social feature rather than the great hall. LMH displays how a long gallery could be tacked onto an existing structure even at the expense of distorting the whole frame. But, that is inelegant- lacking in references and needs to be thought out properly.

Part of the house's interest is that it was built over a period of 100 years, and thus contains elements of many architectural styles, ranging from medieval to Elizabethan is better wording than the cod theory attributed to (Fedden|Joekes|1984). There is no reason why someone couldn 't pen a line like:The house is resolutely medieval in design though part of the house's interest is that it was built over a period of 100 years, and thus contains elements of many architectural styles, ranging from medieval to Elizabethan. Circle squared. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

1. I would like to include a description of what that means using data from (Hartwell|2002|p=6) where she describes the Great Hall at Chethams and Baguley Hall. What is critical here is whether the great hall had a fireplace (modern idea)- or still used the medieval open heath in the centre of the hall with louvres leading to a roof lantern. We have two interesting words here to describe features of the screens passage- the spere (a screen) and or the more modern spere truss construction a truss in the roof frame at with two free standing posts- fixed partitions at each end and the moveable spere screen suspended in between. When describing a great hall I think we also need to talk about the buttery, pantry and kitchen- and how at this time its function was changing from a general purpose room where the household (that meant servants and family) ate and some of the servants would sleep. The social change however to be elucidated in the History section not here. (Yarwood|1956|p=65-99|ps=) describes much in the Tudor chapter. LMH mention on p=76.

   The article already explains that the Great Hall would likely have had rush-covered earth floors and a central hearth, not a fireplace. Malleus Fatuorum 05:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes- how clever. You do miss things like that when you are reading from top to bottom. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

But where would you have expected to find information about the Great Hall other than in the section about the Great Hall? George Ponderevo (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

1. As (Yarwood|1967|p=167-169|ps=) explains. The proportion of half timberwork was smaller than in the middle ages due to hundreds of years of harvesting trees and not replanting. But this was not true in Cheshire due to an absence of good building stone- I think this should be written into the article somewhere (missing reference for that). I think what I am saying is that we need to give a more 'Ẃhy answers'

(more follows tomorrow)--ClemRutter (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Diagonal oak beams --> Diagonal oak braces per glossary (Hartwell|2002|p=350)
2. garderobes wlink needed

   Garderobe is already wikilinked on the first occurrence of the term. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ground floor

1. wood-panelling and screens passage could be wlinked- redirections to articles exist but are of such poor quality they add nothing to this piece. ?

   There's no article on "screens passage", it's a redirect to Great Hall, which doesn't add to our understanding of Little Moreton Hall. "Wood panelling" seems self-evident to me, and not worth a wikilink. Similary "wood panelling" is a redirect to a rather useless (in this context) article on panelling, so again not worth a link. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

2. the Parlour --> the parlour

   It's called "the Parlour" in the sources. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

3. A private staircase between the Parlour - capitalisation issue, if it is a parlour and a withdrawing room no caps, but if it is a title caps OK. Prev sentence announces this is called the Little Parlour.

   It says it was called the Little Parlour in the 17th century, not that it's called the Little Parlour today. The capitalisation (Parlour, Withdrawing Room) is correct as far as I'm concerned, and is consistent with what is used in the sources. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

4. Five oak-framed bins inside may have held barley for the Brew-house,[36] which is now used as a toilet block. Unsure- it sounds as it the bins are now used as a toilet block. Should the comma go? Should which is go?

   Don't agree, looks fine to me. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

First floor

1. The first-floor landing--> A first-floor landing ?
2. consoles - an interesting use of this word. A general reader would associate this with a type of table. The other use would be the pendentive filling where a round headed window was inserted in a rectangular opening, a spandral- should it be written 'consoles (corbels)'?

   "Console" is the word used by the source, and although I've wikilinked it to corbel it's not quite the same thing, as corbels are usually made of stone or brick. My dictionary defines "console" as "an ornamental bracket, esp. one used to support a wall, fixture, bust etc.", so I don't think the use of the term is in any way unusual. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

3. The first floor rooms in the east wing and most of the west wing are not open to the public, having been converted into accommodation for the National Trust staff who live on site.-- this is for the guidebook not an encyclopedia

   It explains why very few of the first-floor rooms are open to the public, so I think it's relevant. And I struggling to see how your comment here is consistent with asking for more details on the modifications made to the house to provide this accommodation. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

4. as a "sanctuary from the fun and games", was reference required?

   It's cited at the end of the paragraph, but presumably you'd like to see a citation directly after the quotation, so I've duplicated it there. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Contents

1. Except for those pieces, and a collection of 17th-century pewter tableware in a showcase in the west wall of the Great Hall, the house is otherwise displayed with bare rooms. Guidebook speak

   I don't think I agree, but perhaps MarchOrDie will have an opinion on this. That the rooms are bare is, I think, a significant feature, as most other National Trust houses are furnished. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Gardens and estate

1. Above I suggested that the para about the moat should be moved here. Comparing with Bramall hall LMH is light and descriptions of the topography- what is the name of the stream that fills the moat, and gave the water head for the mills? Where did the tailrace drain?

   The paragraph about the moat is where it is to explain the topology of where and how the house is sited, so I'm firmly of the opinion that it should remain where it is. I've found no information on the stream that fed the ponds used to power the mills, which are obviously long gone. I must admit to wondering myself though where the water for the moat comes from, so I'll see if I can find anything on that. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

   The moat isn't filled by any stream, it's just the natural water below the surface of the marshy land. The moat is consistently referred to as "waterlogged" as a result, which I've added. I don't see the relevance of the names of the stream(s) that fed the two now long-gone pools. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

2. The contours of the pond used to provide power --> The contours of the pool used to power-- as, the Cheshire dialect word for a mill lodge appears to have been pool, see Poynton Pool etc I have no parallel to suggest that pond was a synonym, I have heard it being used to refer to a natural waterbody- or an artificial one used to raise fish.(actually can't not find other references to this-may be wrong!) The pool created a head of water that could be used to power a waterwheel- it was a source of energy for a watermill.

   I'm quite happy to change "pond" for "pool", particularly as on checking my sources again I find that the body of water used to drive the water-powered hammers was called Smithy Pool. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

3. Water powered hammers -wlink to Trip hammer

   It was already linked in the lead, but I've now repeated the link here, which i think is OK. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Present day

1. There is scope here to add information about how the NT uses LMH and how adaptations have been made to provide staff accommodation and toilet facilities, and what and how it chooses to display artefacts.

   I'm not aware of any published information on the modifications made to provide accommodation for staff who live on -site, and I'm not sure what more could be said than is already said. The toilet facities in the converted Brew-house are already explicitly mentioned in the Ground floor section and shown on the map, as is the gift shop and restaurant in the converted east range. As for the artefacts, there are only four, as the article explains in the Contents section: the refectory table, chest of cupboards and pewter in the Great Hall and the round table in the Parlour. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That concludes my sequential reading of the article- which is a bloody good read- and already was before I started. My two enduring niggles are the inaccurate fluff in the first sentence of the House section, and ensuring that everything mentioned is locatable on the diagram. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the compass north- looks good. ClemRutter (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with you about the "fluff", but I'll wait and see what MarchOrDie thinks before coming to a final conclusion. I've added a compass needle to the ground-floor plan, so there can be no doubt which is the north, south range etc. Most of your other points I think have now been dealt with or responded to where I don't agree, but I'll take another look through later to make certain. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• I implemented what I think of as a compromise on the historical periods issue. Can you gentlemen live with it? I am neutral on the capitalisation issue, being able to see both sides of the argument. On the map issue, as I said, I am with George in thinking the key currently provided in the article is adequate. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't like it. It's perfectly clear to me that what's being described is historical periods, not architectural styles, and as I pointed out above, pre-Renaissance and so on are terms explicitly used by Pevsner. But nobody is suggesting that there is a pre-Renaissance style of architecture. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  Pevsner is iconic, but can be internally inconsistent and makes the occasional hyperbolic literary flourishes that are plain stupid. Here he was just plain wrong. Look at the difficulty you had in wikilinking the assertion The 100-year construction of Little Moreton Hall spanned the period of the pre-[[English Reformation|Reformation]], post-Reformation, [[Elizabethan architecture|Elizabethan]], pre-[[English Renaissance|Renaissance]] and Renaissance. Three out of five --two of which refer to the succeeding period, and one linked to an architectural period! If you wish to include controversial material- do it as an attributed quote.

  The architectural historian Niklaus Pevsner opined that "The 100-year construction of Little Moreton Hall spanned the period of the pre-Reformation, post-Reformation, Elizabethan, pre-Renaissance and Renaissance, but except for some Renaissance decoration such as the motifs on the gatehouse, and Elizabethan fireplaces, the house is resolutely medieval in design."

  However that is a very inelegant way to start the most important section in the article. I would suggest that Malleus's sentence should be used first- giving

The house is resolutely medieval in design: part of the house's interest is that it was built over a period of 100 years, and thus contains elements of many architectural styles, ranging from medieval to Elizabethan. The architectural historian Niklaus Pevsner opined that the construction of Little Moreton Hall spanned the period of the pre-Reformation, post-Reformation, Elizabethan, pre-Renaissance and Renaissance Except for some Renaissance decoration such as the motifs on the gatehouse, and Elizabethan fireplaces, the house remains medieval in design.

ClemRutter (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

(enough for tonight- till tomorrow)ClemRutter (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

But the house doesn't contain elements of many architectural styles. To quote Pevsner again: "But in spite of some Renaissance decoration and some Elizabethan fireplaces, it is ridiculous to speak of Renaissance in a house which structurally and in the visual consequences of its structure is so entirely in the medieval tradition." We need to find a mutually agreeable form of words making the essential point that Little Moreton Hall was old-fashioned even its own time. I've got no investment in terms such as "pre-Renaissance", so why don't we simplify the whole thing and make the essential point more clearly? I suggest something along the lines of

The 100-year construction of Little Moreton Hall coincided with the English Renaissance, but except for some Renaissance decoration such as the motifs on the gatehouse and Elizabethan fireplaces, the house is resolutely medieval in design.

That gets across all I wanted to say. George Ponderevo (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Summary of outstanding issues

The article is in a very good state.

Essential issues

None remain

Style

Several 'Germanism's'

To enclose-->enclosing. The former implies intention, the latter is just descriptive.

Elizabeth Moreton, an Anglican nun[e] who inherited the house following the death of her sister Annabella in 1892, began restoration of the house, which by then was almost derelict.-->Elizabeth Moreton, an Anglican nun[e], inherited the house following the death of her sister Annabella in 1892 and began restoration of the house, which by then was almost derelict. Stylistic- there were 2 equal actions. Or Elizabeth Moreton, an Anglican nun[e] who had inherited the house following the death of her sister Annabella in 1892, began its restoration as, by then, it was almost derelict.

The word quarry- for glass is difficult to link or trace [2] I feel that there should be a link but the Stained glass is inadequate- though by now I surmise it is a corruption of the Norman French 'carré'.

Done Leaded glass ClemRutter (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wording

used to store coal-->used to store domestic coal. If true it rules out the possiblity of steam engines and textile mills

Diagonal oak beams creating chevron and lozenge patterns adorn the façades-->Diagonal oak braces that create chevron and lozenge patterns adorn the façades. Beam is a technical term so is wrong -it must be brace. The that create change is stylistic- but places the subject as the first element of the sentence

Refs needed

Links

Tegg's Mill Quarry

Timber framing

Great hall

Wishlist

Some early nights.

Replies

• The source specifically says "to enclose an earlier property", so nothing is being assumed.
• Changed to "Elizabeth Moreton, an Anglican nun, inherited the almost derelict house following the death of her sister Annabella in 1892, and began restoration work."
• The OED gives this definition for quarry: " A small, diamond-shaped (or occas. square) pane of glass .... Also occas.: a small round pane of glass."
• All the source says is that the Chapel was being used as a coal cellar, which pretty much every house would have had in those days. There's absolutely no reason to suppose that the coal was being used for any kind of industry, of which there was none in the area anyway, as the estate was still being farmed at that time. I've amended the sentence to more accurately reflect what the source says: "By 1847 most of the house was unoccupied, and the deconsecrated chapel was being used as a coal cellar and storeroom."
• Changed "beams" to "braces" as per your suggestion.
• There seems to be some disagreement about where the gritstone slabs on the roof of the Long Gallery came from; Pevsner says Mow Cop, Lake & Hughes say Tegg's Mill Quarry, but nobody says Tegg's Nose Quarry, which is the target for your suggested link. Therefore I've removed any mention of where the slabs came from.
• Timber framing was linked in the lead, but I've now repeated the link in the opening paragraph of the House section.
• Where would you suggest putting a link to great hall? And what would that link tell us about Little Moreton Hall's Great Hall that this article doesn't already tell us? George Ponderevo (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

George Ponderevo (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I look at this from the pov of the reader, who may have many reasons to have landed here. I do a nice rant about BBC journalists who cut and paste my poorly referenced text straight into their scripts..., but generally we are the most reliable authors around- and at the bottom end will be the first degree student who will be wiki-surfing and building up their base knowledge via our links. Over the last few nights, checking wlinks I have come across a plethora of stubs and starts. Great Hall is bad- but not as bad as some. I see the See also section as an invitation to improve related articles.. in this sense Great Hall needs to be there. I see the need for an article on Glass quarries and Lime ash plaster floors. We are moving into the area of Straw Bale Houses, building with cob and green construction crafts. That is outside the current focus. Tegg's Nose refers to the geographical feature and the various quarries there - haven't checked Mow Cop more research needed. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to speculate that Tegg's Nose Quarry is the Tegg's Mill Quarry mentioned by Lake & Hughes as the source of the roofing slabs. And I certainly don't see a See also section as an invitation to improve related articles. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

OK-Lime-ash floor is now written to C-class, and linked in --ClemRutter (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yarwood, Doreen (1956). The English Home (1st ed.). Portman Square London W1: B.T.Batsford.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
• Yarwood, Doreen (1967). The Architecture of England (2nd ed.). Portman Square London W1: B.T.Batsford.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
• Hartwell, Clare (2002). Manchester. Pevsner Architectural Guides. New Haven &London: Yale. ISBN 9780300096668. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Just out of interest - do we happen to know which room on the plan were the former buttery 14 or 15 (my hunch is 15) and which was the original kitchen (14?). If it is knowned, it would be useful to see it on the plan's key as it would give insighting into the working rythm of the house. Giano (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure your guess would be right, but I haven't found anything to confirm that. I'll keep looking though. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by WereSpielChequers

• Comments by WereSpielChequers Nice work, lovely building, can't understand why anyone would build anything in England in any other style. I've made a couple of links, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki... As far as I'm concerned it is already at FA standard, but perhaps there are a couple of things that could be tweaked.

Surely earliest extant parts of the house? The house itself dates from 1271.

Floor is used in two different ways throughout the article, it might benefit from replacing one useage with storey.

The bit about the Lime ash plaster floor might only refer to the floors on the first floor, the photo of the gallery certainly looks like that floor has floorboards. If the flooring is indeed different on the upper floor then that should be mentioned. Not sure whether it might also be worth adding a link to Lath and plaster but that article only refers to walls and ceilings, not floors. Thanks ClemRutter

One of the most distinctive features of the building is the lovely half timbering and the patterns on the outside walls. If anyone has covered this it would be great to have something about the consequent patterns and to what extent they are structural or merely decorative.

Is the moat really waterlogged, or is it actually waterfilled? Applying the duck test to this photo File:The Moat at Little Moreton Hall, Cheshire - geograph.org.uk - 1525.jpg it is more than just waterlogged.

There is a curious little structure on the roof which is visible in File:Congleton moreton hall 002.jpg, do any of your sources say what it is? Thanks for checking, obviously we can't go beyond our sources

A little more detail on the secret rooms would be much appreciated.

Having a plan for the groundfloor is great, but is there any chance of plans for the other floors?

I was also intrigued to see a kennel on the map as a small room inset into the house, again this looks odd enough to be worth mentioning.

In the moat usually means in its ditch rather than inside the moat, I found this slightly confusing especially in combination with the waterlogged /waterfilled issue.

May I suggest File:Little Moreton Hall garden - geograph.org.uk - 433632.jpg as a marginally better photo of the knot garden?

ϢereSpielChequers 17:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Replies

• The house dates from 1504–08. The house mentioned in 1271 is more than likely the one in the ground underneath the present house (which is why the ground – not the house – is a Scheduled Ancient Monument), but there have only been very limited archaeological investigations and I've not seen anyone explicitly claiming that.
• The point about lime-ash plaster flooring does indeed only refer to the first floor, which I've tried to clarify in the First floor section by saying "The floors of the rooms on this level are made from lime-ash plaster ....".

  See my comment above about the quality of linked articles. I Googed this Lime ash floors which referes here and could form the basis of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 22:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  I'm sure it could, and perhaps someone ought to write that article, but my focus is on Little Moreton Hall. I have neither the time nor the inclination to create an article on lime-ash flooring at the moment I'm afraid. Perhaps you do? George Ponderevo (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• The source specifically describes the moat as "waterlogged", not "waterfilled", and no source for the water appears on any map.
• That little structure on the roof also appears on an 1870s photograph I've seen, so it's obviously not a modern addition. I suspect that as it's on the roof above what I believe to have been the original kitchen it's something to do with ventilation, but none of the sources I've seen confirm that.
• That's everything I've discovered about the secret rooms, but I'll have another scout around. As the Moretons were a Protestant family I'm not sure why they would have had secret rooms anyway, something else I'll try and search out.
• There wouldn't be much on plans of the upper floors, as the first floor is almost all private accommodation now, and the upper floor is just the Long Gallery and its adjoining Upper Porch Room. I could probably do something for the first floor though, but not for a few days; it took me ages to do that ground floor plan.
• I've now added a plan of the first floor. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• I've swapped the knot garden image as per your suggestion.

George Ponderevo (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This site could be the source of the confusion, but in its "more information and sources" section it does describe the moat as waterfilled, and that rather accords with the photos. ϢereSpielChequers 18:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• One source in that section describes it as water-filled, another as waterlogged. English Heritage also describe the moat as waterlogged here. That the moat is filled with water isn't in dispute; the question asked was "where does the water come from"? And I've answered that question as fully as the available sources will allow me to. I can say no more than they do. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• I took out the word "waterlogged" as I could see why some readers found it confusing, even though I can see why you included it. I really don't think we need to explain in detail in the article where the water comes from to fill the moat. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking that out. I don't see the difference between waterfilled and waterlogged as anything to do with the source of the water. Just whether the moat is a marshy ditch with a permanently damp floor or whether it is full of water as in the photos. Now that the text no longer conflicts with the photos I'm happy re that point. ϢereSpielChequers 17:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Espresso Addict

Comments by Espresso Addict. Overall, an enjoyable article. I'm not familiar with the references available on LMH, but I know other Cheshire half-timbered houses have rather little material available, so I suspect the authors have done a thorough job with limited references. The style doesn't shine and is in parts a bit clunky, but it gets the message across. Some minor copy edits are necessary (some of which are noted below). Most, but not all, of the following is very minor.

Perhaps a case of too many cooks? ;-) George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

History

• 'vast tracts of land' -- very vague
  • I've adjusted this. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Still seems rather vague. What does the source actually say? Espresso Addict (talk)

      It's rather vague by necessity, as obviously there are no surviving records of the Moreton family's early land deals. But I've rewritten the sentence as "The family were successful in acquiring land cheaply in the aftermath of the Black Death epidemic of 1348 and the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the mid-16th century, greatly increasing the size of their estate". We can say no more than that. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

      • Actually I went to the library this pm and picked up a book with a chapter on the family, which seems to have some more about the land area at various dates. I don't know how reliable it is, but there are detailed numbers which must have some source. Will see what I can dig out and how it meshes with the info you've got. I also photocopied the pages from deF & T and copied out some stuff from McKenna (as the library won't let me take them out, argh) which might be useful. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• para 2 ff. capitalisation of rooms is inconsistent, eg Chapel, Withdrawing Room, Great Hall, Brew-house but gallery, kitchen, long gallery. Later chapel is lower case and Long Gallery in upper case. Gate house is variously given with and without a space.

  "Gate house" is now consistently "Gatehouse", and the later "chapel" now changed to "Chapel". As for the others, they're not capitalised when the terms are being used generally, as opposed to referring to a particular room, as in "a gatehouse" rather than "the Gatehouse". George Ponderevo (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what the rationale for 'kitchen and Brew-house' is ? Espresso Addict (talk)

    I explained below. It wasn't called the "Kitchen and Brew-house block", it simply contained a kitchen. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• para 3. 'A small kitchen and Brew-house block was added to the south wing in about 1610, the last major extensions to the house.' either 'were added' or 'extension' singular.

  It's a block containing a kitchen and a Brew-house, hence a small "kitchen and Brew-house block". Therefore the subject is the singular "block", and "was" is correct. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• para 4. can an indication of the modern value of £3000-4000 be given? I know these values are fraught with problems but a range would be useful. Also later for the 6d entrance fee.

  OK, done. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• para. 4. big time gap between late 1670s & 1841. Is nothing known about this period?

  Only that the house was leased to tenant farmers, which is already described. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• para. 4. 'By 1847 most of the house was unoccupied, and the deconsecrated chapel was being used as a coal cellar and storeroom. Little Moreton Hall was in a ruinous condition; its windows were boarded up and its roof was rotten.' Swap these sentences? Rephrase to state chapel had been deconsecrated (at unknown date?).

  It wouldn't make sense to swap those sentences, as the context for the second is set by the first, "by 1847". George Ponderevo (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Well you'd obviously have to move the date too... The main point on rereading that jumped here is when was the chapel deconsecrated -- is this much earlier (eg when the house was let to tenants), or recently? Espresso Addict (talk)

    There's no record of when the Chapel was deconsecrated so far as I'm aware. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

House

• It would be interesting to compare LMH with other Cheshire half-timbered houses, eg Gawsworth Old Hall and even the much smaller Churche's Mansion.

  I believe that to be outside the scope of this article. Where it seems relevant, such as in the possibility of free-standing screens, reference is already made to similar houses such as Rufford Old Hall. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't agree it's outside the scope at all; any great piece of art needs to be put into context. I think this is somewhere Wikipedia often falls down compared with expert-written encyclopedias. However, I would guess that it's difficult to find sufficient references not to fall into OR. Have you tried references on English half-timbered architecture? I don't see any in the bibliography. Espresso Addict (talk)

    Then we'll have to agree to disagree, as I'm firmly of the opinion that any such comparison would be outside the scope of this article. Perhaps one day someone will write a general article on Cheshire's half-timbered houses, but that person won't be me. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• para 1.'100-year' Prefer hundred-year, but no longer familiar with stylesheet.

  I'm happier with "100-year", which is consistent with the MoS. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• 'Diagonal oak braces that create chevron and lozenge patterns adorn the façades, completed by rendered infill and Flemish bond brick, or windows.' Illustration would be interesting.

  The image in the lead already shows that patterning quite adequately. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Ok; it's not very clear on the thumbnail, but if you look at the full-sized image they are illustrated. Espresso Addict (talk)

• para. 1. 'The windows contain 30,000 leaded panes known as quarries, set in different patterns of squares, rectangles, lozenges, diamonds, circles and triangles that complement the decoration on the timber framing.' Again illustration would be interesting.

  I don't think there's room for any more images, but there is a link to all the images on Commons. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I'd be inclined to try to squash this in, if it could be made to fit. There looked to be a very useful image on Commons which is quite small. Espresso Addict (talk)

    • I've shoehorned it in, without doing too much damage to the overall layout (I hope). Do edit the legend if you can think of something more erudite to write. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

      I've expanded the image caption slightly to identify what window that is. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• para. 2. Quatrefoil should probably be wikilinked.

  Added wikilink for quatrefoil. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• para. 2. 'There is no evidence that the moat served any defensive purpose, and as with many other moated sites it was probably intended as a status symbol.' References?

  Already referenced at the end of the following sentence. the convention adopted here to reduce visual clutter is the common one that citations support everything preceding them. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • My problem with this (and subsequent instances) is that it makes it much more difficult to maintain after 50 editors have added random material, some sourced, some unsourced, into the middle of paragraphs, without realising that they need to propagate your references backwards. It builds in a future reference failure, unless you guarantee to watch the article in perpetuity. Espresso Addict (talk)

    I prefer to avoid clutter, I'm unconvinced by the maintenance argument, and I don't want to go down the "citation at the end of every sentence" route. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• para. 2. 'Each of the two upper floors here is jettied out over the floor beneath.' Is the displacement larger than normal? It looks very top heavy compared with other jettied houses of my acquaintance.

  As alluded to in the "Noah's Ark" quotation in the lead. I've no source suggesting that the displacement is larger than normal. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Again, this is where a few general references on half-timbered houses might be helpful. Espresso Addict (talk)

    I don't see that as being within the scope of this particular article. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• 'The garderobes in the two-storey tower to the left of the gate house empty directly into the moat.' This sentence seems ill-placed.
  • Not responded to. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

    I think the placement is fine, as it's a very obvious feature as the visitor approaches the Gatehouse., but I've amended the sentence to read "The two-storey tower to the left of the Gatehouse contains garderobes, which empty directly into the moat". George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ground floor

• para. 1. 'The original purpose of some of the rooms in Little Moreton Hall is unknown.' Put this sentence at end of paragraph?

  I think it's better where it is. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I think Greeves' general description makes quite a strong opener to this section, while the original purpose statement conveys little information and is not attention grabbing. Espresso Addict (talk)

• para. 2. 'The gabled bay window overlooking the courtyard was added in 1559.' Reference?

  Referenced at the end of the paragraph. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• para. 2. 'arch-braced collar trusses' Any wikilinks for this? Also 'arch-braced roof trusses' under Upper floor.

  Doesn't seem to be. The article on truss doesn't help, as it only addresses triangular supporting structures. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• You might like to link to this instead King post; it's a little nearer the conctruction of collar beams and makes an attempt to explain them etc. Giano (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  It should really be explained in timber roof trusses I suppose, but of course it isn't. I'll look to add something there and link to that. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  • That would be useful. The coverage of technical terms for half-timbering is very poor. Espresso Addict (talk)

    It is, but that's hardly the fault of this article. Anyway, I've started working on it. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

    I've knocked up a diagram for arch-braced roof trusses (arch-braced collar trusses and arch-braced roof trusses are the same thing) and added it to the timber roof trusses article. I'll continue to work on expanding that article, but hopefully what I've done so far addresses the issue raised here. George Ponderevo (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

    • Excellent, thanks. Your drawing skills are better than mine! My one thought on this now is that it would be useful either to relink later when 'arch-braced roof trusses' are mentioned, or (perhaps preferably if they're identical) to call them both by one or the other name. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

      It took me a couple of hours to draw that diagram, so I'd say it's more down to persistence that any innate skill. I was thinking the same thing as you about the naming of the roof trusses; as "arch-braced" seems to be somewhat more common than "arch-braced collar" I've standardised on that. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• para. 3. 'The wooden panelling is a Georgian addition, behind which the original painted panelling was discovered in 1976.' Reference?

  Referenced at the end of the paragraph. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• para. 3. 'The bay window in the Withdrawing Room was added in 1559, at the same time as the one in the Great Hall.' Reference?

  Referenced at the end of the paragraph. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• para. 5. 'The Corn Store adjacent to the Chapel, accessible from the main entrance, may originally have been used as accommodation for a gatekeeper or steward. By the late 17th century it had been converted into a grain store by raising the floor to protect its contents from damp.' Reference?

  Referenced at the end of the paragraph. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

First floor

• para. 1. '"discreet doorway" Reference for this quotation?

  Referenced at the end of the paragraph. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • In addition to my general concerns (see above), I thought the standard for direct quotations was that they should be referenced immediately following the quotation. The Wikipedia ruling on this might have changed while I've been away, but it's certainly still best practice. If you prefer to avoid peppering the text with citations, you could always rephrase. Espresso Addict (talk)

• para. 2. Is the Ann here the same as the Anne in Ground floor section? Names should be standardised.

  Two different ladies, but both spelled "Ann", which I've fixed To try and make that clearer I've called the second Ann's father William Moreton III. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks, this is clearer. Espresso Addict (talk)

• para. 3. Suggest prioritising original uses, rather than the modern ones. In fact could all of this material throughout be moved to the Present day section?

  In many cases we don't know what the original use was, and coupled with the fact that the usage changed throughout the 500 years of the house's occupancy I think this is the best we can do. Therefore I don't think it makes sense to move this to the Present day section, as this is the only way the layout of the house can be visualised/described. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I see this is problematical, but some of the juxtapositions generated some unintentional hilarity. Personally I'd prefer to gather modern usage (ie post-Trust takeover) somewhere else, except where necessary for identifying the room clearly (though the plans are helpful there). Espresso Addict (talk)

    I've done what I can with the material that's available. I'm not prepared to consider splitting the post-National Trust takeover layout from the overall layout as currently described. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Upper floor

• para. 1. 'Running the entire length of the south range, the Long Gallery is roofed with heavy gritstone slabs,[44] the weight of which has caused the supporting floors below to bow and buckle.' This was one instance where I'd have avoided starting with the sub-clause.

  Agreed, done. --MarchOrDie (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• para. 2. '"bursting apart"' does this need to be in quotes?

  I think it does, as it's hardly a technical term. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  I've enacted these suggestions, and I think it looks better now. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  I don't, "Collapsing" isn't synonymous with "bursting apart", which is the term used by the source and hence in quotes. "Collapsing" implies a vertical movement, whereas "bursting apart" implies a horizontal motion. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  Though we could probably see that one would be swiftly followed by the other! I don't like quotes unless they are essential, but I don't feel that strongly about it. You ok with losing "waterlogged"? --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  It would, but one would cause the other, which is my point. As for losing "waterlogged", I'd really like to see that put back, as it (to me at least) goes some considerable way to explaining where the water in the moat comes from. And if it's good enough for English Heritage ... George Ponderevo (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm, well let's think of a compromise. I never liked using "waterlogged" as I agree with WSC that it's confusing. Also, even if the source used this, it doesn't seem like the best way to describe a moat that fills itself from the water table. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Allthough it doesn't sound very nice; isn't the required word for pond/moat or any still body of water that does not flow anywhere: 'stagnant'. Giano (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Back to the 'bursting apart' quotation: if it is a quotation, it should be in quotation marks. As to 'stagnant', it might be technically accurate, I don't think it gives the correct impression. I didn't like 'water-logged' either. Espresso Addict (talk)

  "Bursting apart" is indeed a direct quotation and is already in quotation marks, so I don't understand the problem here. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• No. (edit conflict) See Winterbourne (stream). If as suggested the moat has intersected with the watertable, the water will be flowing but unperceivably slowly, thus not becoming stagnant. I just cant envisage the local geology that is causing this. If you would like to trawl around The geology of the country round Stockport, Macclesfield, Congleton, and Leek. (Sheets 81 N.W. and 81 S.W. of the map of the Geological Survey of Great Britain) (1866) you may find a satisfactory description. Or in a walkers guide to the South Cheshire Way.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

References

• Can the citation list be made two column?

  The Citations list is already two columns. If you mean the Notes section, then I prefer to keep that as one column. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • For some reason, when I accessed the page, the citations were all single column. Seems to have been fixed now. Espresso Addict (talk)

Figures

• The numbers on the plan look a bit fuzzy; are they improved at a different size?

  They look fine to me. I drew the plan as an SVG, which it would have been preferable to upload, but I had to convert it to PNG because of a bug in the SVG-rendering engine. If that's ever fixed I can replace the PNG with the SVG. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • They are still fairly fuzzy on my monitor. I don't know much about png, but text reproduction in images is often improved by reducing the size to the display size before adding the text. Espresso Addict (talk)

    I've managed to find a work-around for the rendering issue, and both of the floor plans are now SVGs. Which do look a bit crisper I have to admit. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• The interior shots are rather dark -- has image brightening been attempted to improve them?

  They look fine to me. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• First figure legend has a full stop, while others do not (including the plan, which is more than a sentence fragment).

  I think the punctuation of all the image captions is fine. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • This seems fixed now, ie ones with complete sentences have full stops, and fragments don't. Espresso Addict (talk)

• Why is the Present day section illustrated with the moat? Why does this break the left-right image rule used elsewhere?

  I wanted to include a picture of the moat, and that seemed a good a place as any. There is no "left-right image rule". George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I think the windows are more interesting than the moat, if space is at a premium. I notice there is one earlier example of breaking the left-right alternation, but the two closely adjacent right-placed ones still looked very odd to me in context. It makes the moat look even more of an afterthought. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

    I've removed the image of the moat, as it didn't have any relevance to the section it was in. And as I've said, there is no left-right rule, so I think the image alignment is fine as it is. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Espresso Addict (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC) (btw, I'm not on wiki often these days; if I fail to return to check your responses, do prod me by e-mail)

Support. My major concerns have all been addressed. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help Espresso Addict. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Support. This is a massive improvement from a rather ordinary article to one worthy of featured status; the result of hard and detailed work by the editors. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Peter, and of course for your advice during the rewrite. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod

• Support once other issues above resolved. I'm not going to pick over it further; the somewhat comical "vast tracts" has gone, though I wonder if "substantial tracts" is still a bit OTT for what was presumably a few hundred acres. There must be some ripely phrased appreciations from the likes of H.V. Morton that could be usefully quoted to give a sense of its prime position among the houses of Ye Olde England, but I can't insist on that. Nice work. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Support Only one prose comment: in the first sentence of the House section, the assertion that the house is medieval in design is bracketed amidst dueling 'except for' statements. That extremely minor quibble aside, this is very well done, and was an enjoyable read. Maralia (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, I fixed that. Thank you for the support. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- The only (minor) thing I still see concerns the last two, very short, sections. If a suitable heading sprang to mind it'd be nice to merge them, especially since they both seem to incorporate some "present-day" info (I inferred that the last renovations weren't eons ago). Failing that, I'd have thought the Present day info should appear last, after any discussion on hauntings. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed that. I switched the sections and moved one sentence to maintain the flow and logic--ClemRutter (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That'll do, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.