Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:56, 23 November 2012

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 – Misplaced Pages 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 (copied from article talkpage)

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?
• 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

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.

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) , 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)

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 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 until 1938" ==> "more than four centuries" (less than 450 years).
• "...published in the ." ==> 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 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)

• 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, 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

(more later).

1. I very strongly disagree. Malleus Fatuorum 04:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

General Comments House

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

1. 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
2. However it is true that the house is resolutely medieval in design.
3. 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.

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.
2. 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. Fedden & Joekes (1984), p. 155 sfnp error: no target: CITEREFFeddenJoekes1984 (help)

• 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 0-300-09666-6, 9780300096668. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)