Talk:Shadwell Court

Caption on infobox image does not comply with WP:CAP

The current caption for the infobox image is a gushing quotation (WP:TONE) and does not comply with the MOS for WP:CAP. The current caption is:

"a dazzling display of Victorian fireworks, a work of genius" - Mark Girouard

It reads like something from a movie poster or book jacket. I changed it to a more accurate one identifying the object with the date of the image, but was reverted twice by KJP1 (talk · contribs) with the claim that this guy knows more than either of us, which doesn't make his quote an appropriate caption for an encyclopedic article.

The MOS states that first, a caption in an infobox is sometimes unnecessary, as it is clearly the subject of the article, but that it should meet the following criteria:

• clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious;
• is succinct;
• establishes the picture's relevance to the article;
• provides context for the picture;
• draws the reader into the article.

The does not at all identify the subject of the photo, nor is it succinct, nor does it provide context, etc. I'm fine with "drawing the reader in" by saying something like "Shadwell Court, pictured in 2014, is a celebrated example of Victorian architecture" but the bottom line is this quotation is un-encyclopedic in tone. Since KJP1 created this article I think this is an WP:OWNERSHIP issue so I'm pinging random people who work on country houses @Dr. Blofeld, Dormskirk, Andrewrabbott, Crouch, Swale, and JohnFratus:. Thank you. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 21:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It is in quote marks so I really don't see it as a problem. Dormskirk (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't meet Wikipedia's MOS for captions, which requires us describe what's in the photo, and it looks bizarre. Imagine if the photocaption on the Buckingham Palace article didn't say "Aerial view of Buckingham Palace and part of its gardens, 2016" but instead said: "like everybody's idea of a palace" – Royal Collection Trust. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 22:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

While Wikipedia articles should not be promotional in any way per WP:PROMO, it is important to convey to the reader that this is one of the most outstanding pieces of Victorian architecture in the UK...and yet it has been placed on the Heritage at Risk Register. Dormskirk (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Kaliforniyka - I appreciate your engaging in discussion, rather than edit-warring. I obviously disagree with your MoS interpretation:

• It is a quote, and presented as such, from the foremost expert on the Victorian country house;
• It identifies the subject, a house that is actually little known, as an important building by a significant architect, and thereby gives context;
• At 10 words, I don’t think it lacks concision;
• In your opinion, its tone is “gushing”. But it remains Girouard’s view of the house and conveys the sense of excitement and spectacle he considers the architect created. As such, my hope is that it draws the reader in. As an aside, there is nothing to suggest that Girouard was seeking to “promote” the house in some way - he had no interest in doing so.

Lastly, I’m puzzled as to why you should drop an assumption of good faith and suggest this is an ownership issue. It’s not - we simply disagree on the appropriateness of a caption. In an encyclopaedia with over six million articles, my view is that there is likely more than one acceptable way to approach this issue. As illustrations, Cragside and Sandringham House both have quote captions, and very positive ones, and did so when they made FA. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think the quite in the infobox image is needed given it is quite opinionated on the building and the quite is already mentioned in text. I don't think the caption is needed as all since as stated its obvious what it is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to take sides, but I personally wouldn't caption an image like that. I think images in the infobox should be neutrally labelled. I'd be fine with the quote in a quote box or text in the article though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld - Great to hear from you and I hope you are keeping well! And don't worry at all about disagreeing. It wouldn't be the first time I've been over-ruled on a caption! If there's a consensus to change it, and at the moment it looks 3:2 against me, then I'm fine for it to be changed. We're a collaborative project. My objection was to the initial, unilateral and unexplained, removal. KJP1 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Good to hear from you! I generally dislike people intruding with the work of others and avoid sticking my beak in when they've contributed the articles but I was asked to comment. I think it's a useful quote which belongs in the article, but just saying I wouldn't use it as the main caption, but others may disagree! Appreciate your work as always. :-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

How about this as a caption: "Shadwell Court (pictured in 2014) is considered an outstanding example of Victorian architecture." It's neutral yet conveys the pertinent information and its significance. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I could certainly go with that. And I appreciate your looking for a compromise position. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if you need the name of the building in the caption since as noted its already in the article title so "Pictured in 2014" would probably do. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks so much to all who participated! I edited it to the suggestion above. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 03:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)