Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blenheim Palace/archive1

Blenheim Palace

A self nom. I re-wrote this page recently. The former was a little sad, and this is England's greatest private house (in at least one sense of the word). Consequently the page is quite long! Do not be put off. I've limited myself on the architectural detail and there are lots of pictures, and (I think) some interesting stuff about the people who have lived there. Some photographs of the interior would be nice, but they are not available - so the external links will have to suffice. As ever thanks to Bishonen for the copyedit, English etc. Giano | talk 20:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

~~Conditional~~ support. I feel the lead section is not entirely appropriate. Citing the plaque on the Palace and then ending the introduction aprubtly with "This is only a fraction of the true story." gives the impression that the author(s) wanted to create a sort of suspense, and give an incentive for users to read the rest. While the intent is laudable, I think the main goal of Wikipedia is to be a vector of information, not entertainment (that isn't to say articles can't be entertaining, but that should be secondary). I feel the lead section should better summarize the rest of the article, so that readers looking up "Blenheim Palace", but who do not have the time to read the whole article get a broad overview of the subject. This might be a subjective view, so I hope I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, what do others think? Now back to this article in particular, the last sentence of the lead is innapropriate in my eyes. Otherwise the article is superb. Phils 08:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any better now? Giano | talk 09:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. Phils 11:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Spelling mistakes ("Churchill's") and persistent POV ("sadly", "cunningly", etc.). Mark ¹ 07:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the 2 x "sadly" and the "cunning" although I don't really think it is POV to describe a deliberate architectural trick as cunning. Spelling: I have removed the wrongly apostrophised "Churchill's" - I can't see any other mistakes, apart from 18th century quotes which are marked by (sic). Giano | talk 12:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Also weasel words: "obviously", "it was assumed", "probably" etc. Whose judgments, whose assumptions? What is "mysterious awe"? How does it differ from other kinds of awe? Similarly for "immense grandeur". I suspect "Agustus" is a relative of Augustus. And I have a terrible feeling of deja vu. ;) Mark ¹ 02:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the words you object to. Sorry about the "déjà vu" have you tried an aspirin? Giano | talk 07:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think that will help. Grammar: "This is only a fraction of the true story, the truth is"; "to supposedly thrill the walker". "It is interesting" to whom? "It is therefore not surprising" to whom? Mark¹ 07:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think I will bother to address any more of your objections. You are clearly not going to change your vote to support. Looking at the great interest it has caused so far the page looks likely to fail FAC anyway. The phrases you object to now seem quite clear and comprehensible to me, so I think I'll leave them. Giano | talk 07:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object This is far too good to be exhibited on the front page. Besides, many apparently have serious reservations ;)--Wetman 22:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]