Talk:Harlaxton Manor

American or British English

Recent changes were from British "enrolment" to US "enrollment", and back again. Here is an 1837 building that is obviously historically English, and a rebuild of an Elizabethan house, but has been made use of by US universities for the last 40 years. Does this indicate that we use British English or American English in the article ? Do we use British English for sections dealing with 400 years from the 16th century to 1971, and American English from 1971 ? Any ideas or WP formulas here ? Acabashi (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Consistency throughout the article is the way to go. Keith D (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes. But British English or American English ? Is there or isn't there a WP recommended choice in these mixed-orientation cases to avoid contention, as is the article about a 400 year English estate, or a now 40 year American College - which takes preference - will editors be left to battle using their own vested interests ? It might be a rare case where English style choice is split between different sections, where sections that centre on present American college occupation and course information use "program/enrollment" and such. This article is not WP conventional here, and poses this interesting question. Acabashi (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict. The subject of the article is the building not the occupants - the building is British and always has been British. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 11:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harlaxton Manor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070118005738/http://web.harlaxton.ac.uk/harlaxton/history/index.cfm to http://web.harlaxton.ac.uk/harlaxton/history/index.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No architectural description?

Most WP articles on historical buildings include a technical architectural description. I was disappointed to find this one didn't. Is it too daunting, given Harlaxton's wildly elaborate design? But isn't that what's so cool about it? Please, someone with the architectural know-how, give it a shot. We're rooting for you. – AndyFielding (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

AndyFielding - You’re not wrong, rather too much on the later Gregorys - generally a dull bunch - and nothing on the house, which is of far more interest than are most of its former occupants. It’s also well documented. There’s a whole chapter in Mark Girouard’s The Victorian Country House and the relevant Pevsner covers it well. When time permits, I shall have a go. KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

AndyFielding - There's more to be done, but I've made a start. Hope it meets the need. KJP1 (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harlaxton Manor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 06:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 11:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Initial comments

First of all, full disclosure: I am a personal friend of the nominator irl. But, as he well knows, I do not give my friends an easy ride when reviewing their articles. Quite the reverse.

Secondly, I could with a clear conscience promote the article to GA as it stands, as I am satisfied it meets all the criteria, but I offer a few comments and suggestions, all wholly optional – take up or ignore as you wish in each case:

• "the Domesday Book " – the italics look a bit odd to me, and I see our WP article on the book doesn't italicise the title. Neither would I.
• "was an ancient building in need of repair so Gregory did not move to the house" – I'm sure I've bored you before with my old-fashioned insistence that "so" is not a conjunction in good formal English. I would write "and so" here.
• "Unmarried, childless, with no interest in traditional country pursuits, and averse to socialising and entertaining, the building of Harlaxton, and the acquisition of architectural elements, paintings, furniture and glass to fit it out, became Gregory's all-consuming passion." – This doesn't say what you mean it to say. We are in dangling modifier territory here: the subject of the sentence is "the building of Harlaxton…" which could not reasonably be described as unmarried or childless. Perhaps something on the lines of "Unmarried, childless, with no interest in traditional country pursuits, and averse to socialising and entertaining, Gregory developed an all-consuming passion for the building of Harlaxton, and the acquisition of architectural elements, paintings, furniture and glass to fit it out."
• "becoming a first-class cricketer" – this could do with a blue link to first-class cricket, referring to the status of the game rather than any individual player's prowess.
• "made her money from developing the first brushless shaving cream and made her name by campaigning against capital punishment" – I like your rhetorical repetition of "made her x … made her y" – lovely writing, most satisfying.
• "losing almost all of her fortune in "obsessive litigation" – I'd prefer to see an attribution for this inline.
• "Harlaxton was requisitioned by the Royal Air Force" – I'm not sure that's technically correct: I think it was requisitioned by His Majesty's Government for the use of the RAF. I'm pretty sure only the government had that power under the relevant Act and the individual armed forces didn't. You may wish to check.
• "It then passes the Kitchen Gardens" – we've been through these hoops before: I don't think there is a case for capitalising everyday phrases like "kitchen garden", "great hall" etc.
• "a significant sum for a landowner with an annual income of £12,000" – if I haven't bored you before about "so" as a conjunction I must surely have bored you about "significant". This is from Plain Words: This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large … it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'
• "The foundation stone of the main central block was laid by Gregory in 1832 and it was complete externally by 1837" – You mean the block was complete by 1837, presumably, rather than the foundation stone, though the latter is what the sentence says as it stands.
• "the entrance to the cour d'honneur" – capitalised "Cour" earlier.
• "the consensus among architectural historians is that disagreements of Gregory's future plans … led to an estrangement" – curious choice of preposition: I'd expect "about" rather than "of".

Over to you. I repeat: these are mere suggestions, and it's entirely up to you which, if any, to act on. I shan't bother putting the review on formal hold, unless you wish me to. – Tim riley talk 11:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Tim - greatly appreciate the review and will look at the suggestions shortly. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Tim riley - Tim, I intended to capture all of the amendments suggested in this edit, . I hope I have done so. Thank you again for the detailed review, the suggestions were all improvements. Let me know if I've missed anything, or there is anything that needs clarification. KJP1 (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No further questions, m'lud. Promoting to GA forthwith. A most interesting article about an unusual building. (Glad my suggestions were of some use.) Tim riley talk 16:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)