Talk:Wrest Park

Highway Code?

This park is used in the Highway Code representing "ancient monument in the care of English Heritage; this is used generically in all DFT publications for this sign.

I removed the above section because it did not make sense to me and after investigating discovered the the author is now blocked. MortimerCat 15:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Errors in this article?

London and Wise didn’t have a design influence on this garden other than one of them being the father-in-law of the Thomas Acres (who designed part of the garden's early structure) and the other advising on what fruit trees to grow.

Surely, if these two facts are included in the article, any "influence" can be omitted. --Wetman 20:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also a problem with the image stating that the parterres remain from the 18th C. garden, as they are now where the Croquet area stands. The parterres now by the 19th C. house date from the 19th C. themselves. These parterres are not the park’s centrepiece which has always been the Grand Canal.

On-site knowledge, supplemented by the engraved perspective view and Rocque's map, will certainly improve the article. --Wetman 20:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a general misunderstanding of what a parterre and an allée is, and that Capability Brown added the canals and wooded enclosures. All he did was to ‘soften’ the edges of the existing canals around the edge of the garden. The wooded enclosures predate Brown's work at Wrest.

The state of the gardens shortly before Brown worked at Wrest can be assessed from a close reading of Rocque's map. Does anyone really mistake a parterre for an allée? --Wetman 20:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Any discussion on these points would be appreciated before I edit the main text.

Gartenmeister 18:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Rearrangement of article

I've moved this article from Wrest Park Gardens and substantially rearranged it, given that I couldn't see a reason why it focussed solely on the gardens when the house is just as notable (being Grade I listed). If anyone spots any errors I've made, please fix. Cheers, DWaterson 19:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

House

I have recently made quite a few changes but wondered if anyone has an opinion on whether the house should have a separate part of the article or whether it is covered enough within history? LateFatherKarma (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Or a separate article... Perhaps it's best to keep the architecture together. The lead is faaaar too short. Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Good point on the lead! I think I hopefully clarified/resolved regarding the article comment. I'd love to get this to good article status, so appreciate your suggestions. LateFatherKarma (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

GA review

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

Nominator: LateFatherKarma (talk · contribs) 17:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 10:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Pleased to pick this one up. Shall begin shortly. I tend to first go through with a prose/content commentary, and then conclude with a summary. You can see an example, here. You are welcome to comment as I go, or at the conclusion when I will ping you. KJP1 (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Review

Quick fail

• It's a strong, well-researched article and I'm not seeing grounds for QF. However the Earwig reading is is 48.5%, , which is a bit high for comfort. I actually don't think it's too much of an issue - the main "source" likely copied from here, and there is much repetition of titles. That said, I have noticed a few examples where the prose could be altered to be less like the source text. I shall try to point these out as we go. On the the main review.

Lead

• "and Wrest Park gardens, also grade I listed, formal gardens surrounding the mansion, which include a number of other buildings, monuments and statues." - We have two "gardens" in close proximity, and the sentence doesn't flow. Perhaps - "and Wrest Park gardens, also grade I listed, which surround the mansion and contain a number of other buildings, monuments and statues."

• Resolved. LateFatherKarma (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "it was occupied" - "the house was occupied"

• Resolved. LateFatherKarma (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "generations of the family evolving the gardens" - the gardens certainly evolved, but can one say that the family "evolved" them? "developing"?

• Resolved. LateFatherKarma (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "1830's" - does this need an apostrophe?

• Resolved. LateFatherKarma (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The estate has been managed by English Heritage since 2006" - the wording seems to suggest EH do the management on behalf of somebody else. Don't they actually own it?

• Have clarified this. LateFatherKarma (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Length - despite expansion, the lead does remain slightly short. I would do a a bit on the architecture of the house and the importance of the gardens, lobbing in mention of some of the major architects/landscapers etc. For me it's slightly odd that the lead includes mention of a couple of tv/film locations but doesn't mention Brown/Archer.

• Have worked to improve this, taking your suggestions on board, please let me know if you think it needs more. LateFatherKarma (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

History

• Sources 2 and 29 - aren't these the same? And can we, here and elsewhere, use the NHLE template.<ref>{{NHLE|num=1311484|desc=Wrest Park House and service block comprising pavilions, clock tower and the dairy|grade=I|access-date=1 June 2026}}</ref>

• I think I have resolved this, this was a new one for me as I typically edit using the visual editor so I found it a bit fiddly, but hopefully I did this ok. Please let me know if you notice any problems. LateFatherKarma (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The earliest known mention of the family owning land in the area is in the feudal aids (1284 to 1286)." - This is an instance of close paraphrasing mentioned above. The source says "The earliest reference to the de Grey family owning land in Flitton and Silsoe is in the Feudal Aids on 1284-6". While a few words have been changed, most and the sentence structure, have not. It could be reworded to take it further from the source.

• I have tweaked the paraphrasing. LateFatherKarma (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "In the early 16th century Wrest Park was mortgaged by Richard Grey, 3rd Earl of Kent, before Richard's brother Henry Grey, 4th Earl of Kent, purchased it." - This sentence, and its predecessor, take us forward some three centuries. I think the reader will need just a little on the decline of the family from their medieval eminence, in particular, the wastrel 3rd earl whose profligacy saw the mortgaging of the Wrest estate.

• Have added more on the early history of the family and a little on the original house. LateFatherKarma (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• 2nd para. - most of this is actually an architectural description of the Archer Pavilion. Would this content not sit better in a sub-section on the pavilion in the Gardens section, where you already have such sub-sections on less architecturally important structures. In addition we wouldn't capitalise The Archer Pavilion, and you describe it as grade 1, rather than the grade I you rightly use elsewhere.

• Great suggestion and I totally agree. Created new part on this. LateFatherKarma (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• 5th para. - This seems largely uncited, certainly there's no concluding cite. The stuff about Clephan can be cited to Colvin. perhaps moved to the end, and it's page 219 in my 1978 Dictionary. But the earlier stuff about Grey and RIBA needs a cite. Grey’s entry in Colvin, pages 365-366, gives you all you would need. On a related point, lots of the para.s are quite short - one to two sentences. Many could be combined.

• I believe I have largely resolved this (with the exception of short paragraphs beyond this which I will look at in due course) really appreciate your ref suggestions. I don't have access to the sources you have recommended. Is there any further help you could give in this regard (I am only concerned about the last one). LateFatherKarma (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Resolved LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• 6th para. - this could easily be combined with the 5th (see above). I also think the instance of Pevsner's error needs citing. It's page 173 in my 1974 edition. In fairness, I think the fact that the error is corrected in the 2014 revision of the BoE by Charles O'Brien should be mentioned. It's page 343 in my 2014 edition. Also, are we sure that Charles Read, Grey's biographer, is our Charles Read?

• Is there a way of me accessing these sources via the Wikipedia Library?. LateFatherKarma (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think so. But I am very happy to scan and email the Pevsner/Colvin. Progress is looking good. KJP1 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I found a phd thesis that discussed this matter in depth, drawing on the sources you recommended, hopefully this is sufficient. I enabled my email too if not (thank you!). I also took the liberty of moving this into Wrest Park house, as it seemed to fit more naturally in that part LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• 8th para. - re. Whitelaw Reid, you could link Court of St James's or, more simply, call him the US ambassador to Great Britain.

• Resolved. LateFatherKarma (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Nan Ino Cooper ... Following the death of her brother Auberon Herbert, 9th Baron Lucas, who died in action in 1916, she inherited his title" - did she really inherit the title, as opposed to the estate? It would be unusual, and the source doesn't appear to confirm it. But this Baron Lucas, tells me she did. So we need a source, and perhaps an explanation, "The title was created with remainder to her heirs male by Lord Kent and failing which to her heirs general without division (the latter being the same way that the Crown passed, i.e. to the eldest daughter in the absence of sons, rather than going into abeyance or to the nearest male-line relative)." Perhaps a footnote?

• I have tweaked the copy a bit so it's clearer and included an additional ref, I am hoping that is ok. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• "It was sold after World War I to John Murray, who was associated with cricket in Bedfordshire" - would it be clearer to describe Murray as a businessman, as Source 17 does?

• Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by LateFatherKarma (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Wrest Park House

• Detail - this section is a little too short. What is the house built of? Bath stone. How many bays, 13, and storeys, 2, with attics and basements? HE thinks the enfilade plan of the house of great significance. What kind of roof, Mansard roof? Where is the mention of the Grade I listing? While it is certainly arguable that the gardens are more important than the house, I do think a little more detail is warranted. O'Brien's revised Pevsner has good coverage. I can email you the section if you don't have access.

• I have added quite a bit more to this. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• "wallpaper in an "El Dorado" pattern that was made by French company Zuber & Cie in 1849, which is very rarely found in England, with rare Chinese wallpapers in two first floor rooms.[29][2]" - what is an "El Dorado" pattern? And the Chinese wallpapers are covered here, and at the beginning of Restoration programme. Would it be better to combine the mentions here? Lastly, I think Sources 2 and 29 are actually the same (see above).

• Done, I included a ref to English Heritage here, given it's supported by another, I hope that's ok. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The conservatory is fully integrated into the house. An exhibition about Wrest Park and its owners is hosted in the house." - A few things here. What does the conservatory being "fully integrated" actually mean? That it adjoins the house, in which case, don't they all? And how reliable is Britain Express as a source? First, it is outdated. Second, it suggests that Wrest was designed by a French architect, repeating Pevsner's fifty-year old error.

• Agreed. Having visited there is a door from the countess's room directly into it, I don't think overall this is significant enough to include and with the ref issue, have removed this. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Wrest Park Gardens

• Archer Pavilion - as mentioned above, I would have a sub-section on the pavilion here, taking the text from History, and ideally adding to it. In terms of grading, it's the only other Grade I structure on the estate, apart from the house, it's the cover of O'Brien's revised Pevsner, and it certainly warrants a sub-section. O'Brien covers it at length, as does HE and the Country Life article you have. I would definitely mention Francesco Borromini's Sant'Ivo alla Sapienza as inspiration for the plan.

• Done. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• William Kent obelisk - I also wonder whether the Kent obelisk is worth a mention? Its later journey to Trent Park, and subsequent campaigns to reinstate it, may be of interest. It's in Source 6.

• Have added this, with the exception of campaigns to bring it back to Wrest as the source for this suggests that the campaign was for the other statues that were moved. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Para. 1 - we could do with a concluding cite.

• I looked into this further which raised concerns with me in regards to the involvement of George London and Henry Wise. As such I reworded this, omitting their involvement due to the references and instead tried to give a better description of the grounds. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The park is divided by a wide gravel central walk, continued as a long canal that leads to a Baroque pavilion banqueting house designed by Thomas Archer and completed in 1711." - another close paraphrase. Di Camillo has, "The Park today is divided by a wide gravel central walk, which continues as the Long Canal, which, in turn, leads to the famous Archer Pavilion".

• I will look into this tomorrow. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Resolved. LateFatherKarma (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• "The interior of the pavilion is decorated with impressive corinthian columns" - "impressive" looks a bit POV unless it's a quote, and you could link Corinthian order.

• Resolved. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Grade I listing - where is the cited mention of the gardens being Grade I listed, which is mentioned but not cited in the lead? This is what is needed, <ref>{{NHLE|num=1000113|desc=Wrest Park|grade=I|access-date=1 June 2026}}</ref>

• Resolved. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Between 1834 and 1839, whilst Wrest Park was owned by Thomas de Grey, 2nd Earl de Grey, he designed a substantial walled garden, that incorporates earlier sculptures by Peter Scheemakers. During 1835 an orangery was added and a fireplace from the house was re-erected on the west wall of it." - few things here. We're already been told Thomas was the owner in the 1830s, so I don't think it bears repeating. And ending the second sentence with "it" seems odd. Perhaps a redraft, e.g. "Between 1834 and 1839, Thomas de Grey designed a substantial walled garden that incorporated earlier sculptures by Peter Scheemakers. During 1835 an orangery was added and a fireplace from the main house was re-erected on its west wall."

• Resolved. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Brown Monument and Chinese bits - fine.

Archaeological collections store

• "a 17th century painted window glass, created by Sir Christopher Hatton to impress Queen Elizabeth I " - another instance of close paraphrasing, the source saying, "fragments of 17th-century painted window glass, which Sir Christopher Hatton designed to impress Queen Elizabeth I".

• Worked on the paraphrasing. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• As both sources do, it may be worth mentioning that the collection represents about a third of EH's total holding of architectural salvage. That gives the reader a sense of scale.

• Done. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Restoration programme

• Chinese wallpapers - as mentioned above, I'd move the first para. up to Wrest Park House, as the Restoration section really focuses on the gardens. Source 48 would also allow you to expand on, and bluelink, El Dorado.

• Done. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• 2nd para. - we've two "EH announced" here, one of which could be changed for variety.

• Done. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• "brought the painting to Wrest Park, but it left when it was sold in 1917. The painting has been restored and is on display at Wrest Park." - not sure the picture had agency to leave of its own accord. And it's unclear whether the "it" refers to the picture or the house. Perhaps, "brought the painting to Wrest Park but it was removed when the estate was sold in 1917. The painting has been restored and is on display at the house."

• Done LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Filming

• While I personally might not have a whole section just focussed on media appearances, I'd stick it as a sub-section at the end of History, that's just a personal preference, and it is good, and quite rare!, to see everything's cited. That said, are we sure that Source 61 is Reliable? It looks like a fan site.

• I like this suggestion, makes it different, done and new ref on Status Quo. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Notes

• Tidying - Sources 2/29 should be combined / the HE template should be used throughout / you sometimes include the author and/or publisher and sometimes don't / you sometimes bluelink Works and sometimes don't / some have access-dates while some don't / Source 32 needs the title decapitalising / Source 51 doesn't work /

• I am not sure what the HE template is or what I need to do regarding bluelinks (I am still quite inexperienced with certain aspects of editing), could you provide an example? I will also look into this tomorrow. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure you are bang on with the NHLE template which you have used, quite correctly, in for example Cite 71. It is just the best referencing style for listed structures in England. There is another for Cadw listing in Wales, which work exactly the same way, just replacing NHLE with CADW at the beginning. Re. Bluelink, these are links which appear in blue and, if you click on them, you get taken to the relevant article. So, as examples, in Cite 21, the work is The Guardian, but it’s not blue linked. Whereas in Cite 41 the work is BBC News which is blue linked. All you do is put double square brackets around the text you want to link. To be honest, the key point is not whether they are, or are not linked, but rather that the article is internally consistent. So, either Bluelink all, or Bluelink none. It’s the same with 10 or 13 digit ISBN numbers. Choose one or t’other but don’t mix. Again, being honest, this is more a Featured Article point, than a Good Article point, but it doesn’t hurt to get into good habits! KJP1 (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Great, understood, thank you. Will let you know when I am all done. LateFatherKarma (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe this is all now resolved, only exception is where there were not Wikipedia pages to add blue links to. LateFatherKarma (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Further reading

• ISBNs - you have both 10 and 13-digit formats, which should be standardised.
• DOIs - do we have these for the journal articles?
• ISSN - the last item is just an ISSN that takes me to a number of Worldcat entries. What is it, does it have a title?

• Will look into this tomorrow. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. LateFatherKarma (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Infobox

• Url - I've taken the liberty of formatting the bare url for the house website. Apart from that it looks fine.

• Thank you. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Images

• Placement - I'm not mad about the placement, particularly the long string down the left-hand side. I don't think it assists readability/look. Personally, I would keep those that directly relate, and place them where they do, e.g. Chinese summerhouse and bridge on the right-hand side next to this section, Archer Pavilion rhs next to its section, etc. Then I'd put the remainder in a Gallery at the bottom.

• Another task for tomorrow. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Alignment and gallery resolved. Also added more images to the gallery. LateFatherKarma (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Categories

• Garden listing - given that we do have [[Category:Grade II listed parks and gardens in Bedfordshire]], I'm surprised we don't have [[Category:Grade I listed parks and gardens in Bedfordshire]]. But that's hardly your issue to sort.

• Done. LateFatherKarma (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I think I misinterpreted this, as I added it, but it was reverted by another person as the category apparently doesn't exist, apologies for my confusion over this. LateFatherKarma (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

No worries, it's now done. I really need to create Grade II* listed parks and gardens in Bedfordshire for completeness. KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Review Summary

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   The prose is generally of a good standard. I've made a few suggestions.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I think it meets all MoS requirements, subject only to my query about images, see below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   There are a few Citation issues that need tidying.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   I've flagged a couple of sourcing queries/concerns.

   c. (OR):

   No evidence of OR found.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig is generally ok, but I flagged a few instances of close paraphrasing.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   I think we need a bit of reordering/expansion, in particular around the house and the Archer Pavilion, and have made suggestions.

   b. (focused):

   Yes.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   All good.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   All good.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   It is very well-illustrated.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Have made a placement suggestion.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

LateFatherKarma - That's me done. Let me know if anything's unclear. I'll now put the article On Hold, which gives you a week to consider/respond, but we can be flexible about this if needed. KJP1 (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

All done now (I hope!), thank you for your guidance, suggestions, help and thoroughness. Whatever the outcome of the review, I have learnt stuff and think it has been improved :) LateFatherKarma (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

KJP1 - Thanks for the changes you made, do let me know if anything more is needed. LateFatherKarma (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

LateFatherKarma - You've worked hard to create what I think is your first Good Article. Many congratulations! And I am glad to process has been useful. For my part it was an absolute pleasure as is Passing the article, which I will now do. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Yay, fantastic. LateFatherKarma (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)