Talk:The Abbot's Fish House, Meare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Abbot's Fish House, Meare has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starThe Abbot's Fish House, Meare is part of the English Heritage properties in Somerset series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 20, 2015Good article nomineeListed
July 9, 2015Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 8, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that The Abbot's Fish House (pictured) is the only surviving monastic fishery building in England?
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Abbot's Fish House, Meare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 12:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Lede
  • "was constructed by the abbot between 1322 and 1335 " -do we have a name for the abbot?
  • Either Walter of Taunton or Adam of Sodbury from the dates but not sourced as far as I can find.— Rod talk 13:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some restoration has been undertaken during the 20th century." -perhaps be more specific here.
  • Added a bit about the new roof in the 1920s.— Rod talk 13:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • Glastonbury Lake Village -no article? All capital letters seems strange.
  • "The fish house is now in the care of English Heritage" -since when?
  • They took it over from the ministry of works when that ceased to exist in the 1980s - but state ownership/guardianship since 1911.— Rod talk 13:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further down you state 1884 for the fire, why not be more specific in the history too?
Architecture
  • Anything about the inner roof beams?
  • Nothing thast I've seen - but constructed in 1920s.— Rod talk 13:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency witrh the 1826 plan[edit]

The central arched door visible in the interior illustration of the text doesn't appear in the 1826 plan (illustration at right): a conjectural restoration made after the fire? Should the text reflect the discrepency?--Wetman (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]