Jump to content

Talk:Buildings and architecture of Bristol: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GreenC bot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,502,799 edits
→FA concerns: new section
Line 149: Line 149:


The statement:{{quote|text=...especially in November and December 1940, when the Broadmead area was flattened}} is just not true. The Wine Street, Mary le Port Street and Castle Street areas were more or less burnt out on 24/11/40, but the area we think of as Broadmead received a light dusting. Take a look at the 1946 aerial view (http://maps.bristol.gov.uk/kyp/?edition=) and you will see that whilst the e side of Union Street was flattened, the rest of the area around Broadmead, Milk Street, Rosemary Street and Merchant Street was very much still there. It was the PRC wot done it, not the Luftwaffe, as is so often the case.[[User:RedSquirrel|RedSquirrel]] ([[User talk:RedSquirrel|talk]]) 22:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The statement:{{quote|text=...especially in November and December 1940, when the Broadmead area was flattened}} is just not true. The Wine Street, Mary le Port Street and Castle Street areas were more or less burnt out on 24/11/40, but the area we think of as Broadmead received a light dusting. Take a look at the 1946 aerial view (http://maps.bristol.gov.uk/kyp/?edition=) and you will see that whilst the e side of Union Street was flattened, the rest of the area around Broadmead, Milk Street, Rosemary Street and Merchant Street was very much still there. It was the PRC wot done it, not the Luftwaffe, as is so often the case.[[User:RedSquirrel|RedSquirrel]] ([[User talk:RedSquirrel|talk]]) 22:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

== FA concerns ==

I'm concerned that this older featured article does not meet the [[WP:FACR|current FA standards]]. Much of the material appears to have been drawn from general sources without explicit inline citations for the conclusions. While this was at the 2007 standards, it needs some work to get up to the more modern ones. For instance:
* {{Xt|The local Pennant sandstone is frequently used as walling material, often with limestone dressings, as found on the old Temple Meads railway station and Clifton Down railway station.}} - the two cited source sources do support that the Temple Meads railway station has conglomerate with limestone dressings, and that Clifton Down one is built with Pennant and limestone, the more general conclusion about frequency of use is not explicitly supported anywhere

There's also a spot or two with [[WP:CLOP|close paraphrasing]] issues, such as {{Xt|This has left We The Curious (formerly At-Bristol), which mixes art, science and nature, with its all-reflective planetarium, as the centrepiece of the Harbourside development}}. Compare to {{red|with its stunning all-reflective planetarium}}, {{red| the centrepiece of the Harbourside development}}, and {{red|mixes art, science and nature}} from the source.

There's also been some uncited text creep in through the years. However, the primary concern RE the FA criteria is the apparent use of general sources, but no indication where this information originated from. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 23:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:24, 20 May 2023

Featured articleBuildings and architecture of Bristol is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 11, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 24, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 16, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
October 23, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Outdated?

This appears to be outdated: see [1] and [2] --Cedderstk 20:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New version

This conversation was moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bristol.

I found a pointless, unencyclopaedic and incorrect list of Bristol buildings earlier, so I turned the article into Buildings and architecture of Bristol. I don't have time to do much more on it though, so if anyone wants to take over, and perhaps add a section that can act as an introduction to the lists of listed buildings? Joe D (t) 22:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I see - I've expanded it a bit! but it still needs more work particularly more recent architecture and developments. I will work further on this but, like you, time is limited and any help would be appreciated.— Rod talk 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on the great work on that article, that's a huge improvement. Gasheadsteve 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I think it still needs info on residential buildings eg Crews Hole was built for sailors in the 17th century and became a major industrial centre in the 19th OR Fishponds was built in the victorian era etc.. (Please don't use those I made them up) - does anyone has access to this sort of info?— Rod talk 19:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I imediately thought of bristolhistory.com, which I remember having info about individual notable buildings, as well as info on suburbs like era, style and purpose. Joe D (t) 21:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review (Pass)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 24, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: A very good article
2. Factually accurate?: very well sourced...
3. Broad in coverage?: Try to avoid red links, which are abundent in the "Tallest buildings" section. Either make articles for those or remove the links
4. Neutral point of view?: nuetral
5. Article stability? no problem
6. Images?: didn't check them all, but first few were all right

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — SpecialWindler talk 10:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to avoid red links, which are abundent in the "Tallest buildings" section. Either make articles for those or remove the links

  • In the first sentence of the second paragraph in the lead instead of "in the" have "throughout the"
  • The first reference in the "Bibliography" has no ISBN (I'm presuming its a book)
  • Can you perhaps make a section, comparing the time periods...

A very well written article. SpecialWindler talk 10:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart architecture

I removed this sentence from the Stuart architecture section:

"The street led from the bridge over the Frome outside the city walls near the old St Bartholomew's Hospital,[1] towards St Michael's church."

It's describing the road that the Christmas Steps replaced, but so far as I can see neither St Bartholomew's Hospital or St Michael's church date from this period, so should they really be mentioned in this section? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Nos.17, 18 AND 19 St Bartholomew's Hospital". Images of England. Retrieved 2007-05-15.

Intro

Where it says ....."reflects medievalism, industrialism" etc, I would like it to say something to the effect that it reflects the city's ancient origins, medieval past, Georgian rationalism, Victorian nostalgia, industrialisation ..... or something like that. --Amandajm 11:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

amazing

I have to say work on this article is just amazing and a credit to wikipedia. Excellent research on a non-mainstream topic.Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


true 70.162.165.29 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fragment?

Senetence two seems to be a fragment

MichaelPfohl2 (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is it the sentence which says: "During the mid-19th century, Bristol Byzantine, an architectural style unique to the city, was developed, of which several examples have survived." that you think is a fragment?— Rod talk 17:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but upon further reading i see how it is a sentence but perhaps it should be edited considering it is a featured article and as such it will recieve many views and so the sentence may cause confusion but this, again, is only a mere suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelPfohl2 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Meads?

The paragraph describing Temple Meads current station as being designed by Brunel is surely wrong? I think it was built something like 20 years after he had died?

Weirdoldhattie (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a sentence which says "the original Temple Meads railway station—now used as the British Empire and Commonwealth Museum—were designed or built by Isambard Kingdom Brunel." but in the lede I have changed it from "like the current station" to unlike the current station. (I think this may have been changed since I originally wrote it.) Does that resolve the issue?— Rod talk 17:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buildings and architecture of Bristol. 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:

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) 01:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buildings and architecture of Bristol. 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:

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) 04:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20th century: who flattened Broadmead?

The statement:

...especially in November and December 1940, when the Broadmead area was flattened

is just not true. The Wine Street, Mary le Port Street and Castle Street areas were more or less burnt out on 24/11/40, but the area we think of as Broadmead received a light dusting. Take a look at the 1946 aerial view (http://maps.bristol.gov.uk/kyp/?edition=) and you will see that whilst the e side of Union Street was flattened, the rest of the area around Broadmead, Milk Street, Rosemary Street and Merchant Street was very much still there. It was the PRC wot done it, not the Luftwaffe, as is so often the case.RedSquirrel (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FA concerns

I'm concerned that this older featured article does not meet the current FA standards. Much of the material appears to have been drawn from general sources without explicit inline citations for the conclusions. While this was at the 2007 standards, it needs some work to get up to the more modern ones. For instance:

  • The local Pennant sandstone is frequently used as walling material, often with limestone dressings, as found on the old Temple Meads railway station and Clifton Down railway station. - the two cited source sources do support that the Temple Meads railway station has conglomerate with limestone dressings, and that Clifton Down one is built with Pennant and limestone, the more general conclusion about frequency of use is not explicitly supported anywhere

There's also a spot or two with close paraphrasing issues, such as This has left We The Curious (formerly At-Bristol), which mixes art, science and nature, with its all-reflective planetarium, as the centrepiece of the Harbourside development. Compare to with its stunning all-reflective planetarium, the centrepiece of the Harbourside development, and mixes art, science and nature from the source.

There's also been some uncited text creep in through the years. However, the primary concern RE the FA criteria is the apparent use of general sources, but no indication where this information originated from. Hog Farm Talk 23:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buildings_and_architecture_of_Bristol&oldid=1156046288"