Misplaced Pages

User talk:Giano II

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Utgard Loki (talk | contribs) at 16:47, 28 March 2008 (→Assessment of Little Moreton Hall, Kedleston Hall & Ascott House). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:47, 28 March 2008 by Utgard Loki (talk | contribs) (→Assessment of Little Moreton Hall, Kedleston Hall & Ascott House)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at

Essay: A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles

Your Email

Your email on Wednesday lifted my spirit. ;-) Let's talk more and see if we can figure out the best approach to take. I'll email you in the morning with some specific ideas to see if you think that they will work. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 02:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment of Little Moreton Hall, Kedleston Hall & Ascott House

Hi, Thanks for your message about assessing Little Moreton Hall, Kedleston Hall & Ascott House as start class when reviewing all National Trust houses for the new Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Museums. As you know these things are a subjective judgment & we are still developing the criteria at: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Museums which you would be very welcome to participate in. They are all good interesting articles, but as you requested a few comments on other things which could be done. Little Moreton Hall - well referenced, but more could be said about the contents (as opposed to architecture) & NT ownership (eg when did they aquire it & how) - I have put this one up to B class. Ascott House & Kedleston Hall are completely unsupported by inline citations & I feel these are needed before they could make B class. I would personally add an infobox using Template:Infobox Historic building, but as we discussed on Brympton d'Evercy I know you dislike these. I hope these comments are useful.— Rod 14:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't like info boxes, in fact I detest them. In line cites are only needed for contraversial or disputed facts, and Little Moreton Hall is notable for not having contents. Giano (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
A quick glance puts the first at GA+ class, easily, and the other two, most probably. Of course, with an infobox, I'd relegate them to "borderline deletable".--Doc 15:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
In line cites are only "required" for controversial or disputed facts - however they are good practice at all times, for dates, names, styles etc - these enable others to check what has been written & get further information. If you would like me to I can go through & add "citation needed" tags, but I'm sure you are aware of where they would be helpful. Perhaps an edited saying "Little Moreton Hall is notable for not having contents" would be useful?— Rod 14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you mean well, but Giano is one of our best writers. Have you heard the expression "to try to teach your granny to suck eggs"?--Doc 15:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't think of trying to teach Giano to suck eggs - I was asked on my talk page why I had rated them in the way I did. We have previously had long discussions about Brympton d'Evercy & the benefits (or othewise) of GA reviews. I have personally guided several articles to FA & even more through GA, so I feel I am aware of some of the issues. You may not find infoboxes useful/attractive or whatever but many others do & I find them a useful summary. — Rod 15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your advice, but the pages will have to remain "start" standard if that is the case. I am just hapy they are one up from a stub. To be honest i had forgotten I ever write them, so it is nice to see them popping up on the watch list. I may soon start my own grading of pages. Just think of the fun I could have with that. Giano (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
A box promises to contain, and things that can't be neatly contained can't be put in boxes. A box suggests "this is the real deal," and if the real deal could be put in a box, then there would be no need for articles. A box says, "Here is your PowerPoint bullet point list, so you can find all the world reduced to a reductive summary; please do not strive to understand complexity, for that is for suckers." A box says, "Misplaced Pages is just like your primary school text book: full of colors and 'bites' of infotainment." A box says, "I, the box maker, have just pissed all over this article and written a counter-article, and it's short, so read it instead." A box may be found useful by some people, indeed. We call those people "non-readers." Utgard Loki (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)