Talk:History of Bristol/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewing.Pyrotec (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

After an initial review, this article appears to stand a reasonable change of making GA, i.e, it is not going to be 'Quick Failed'.

However, a few of the paragraphs seem to be unreferenced, or very sparsely referenced, i.e. non-compliant with WP:Verify; and there may be some missing information. So, I suspect that I will put the WP:GAN On Hold so that they can be addressed. These 'problems' do not seem to be particularly extensive; and details will follow later.Pyrotec (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Main review[edit]

By preference, I'm leaving my comments on the WP:Lead until almost last.

As stated above, this article is at or about GA-level so in this section I'm only really mentioning points that I consider need some attention. Sorry I'm only giving the constructive criticism here, and failing to mention all the good points. The bad points can be summarised as breadth of Scope and verification (or lack thereof).

  • Pre-Norman - Looks OK to me.
  • Norman era - First two paragraphs are devoid of in-line citations.
  • Later middle ages -
  • The bridge and the Great Ditch construction in the first paragraph are unreferenced.
  • The third paragraph is devoid of in-line citations.
  • In the 16th century the former St Augustine abbey becomes the Cathedral, I know there were other religious orders in Bristol, friars, monks, etc, but they are entirely absent from here, where I would expect them to be.
  • Done. Added details of dissolved houses. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Exploration - Looks OK to me.
  • Early modern - First two subsections look OK to me.
  • Slave trade -
  • The comment in the 2nd para about the slave trade / brass ware 'kick starting' the Industrial revolution needs a citation.
  • A nicely referenced list of opponents to the slave trade is given, but there is no mention as to whether any were local to Bristol.
  • Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries -
  • The first paragraph is devoid of in-line citations.
  • The first paragraph, apart from the lack of in-line citations, is quite a nice paragraph. All the subsequent paragraphs are quite 'bitty' two or three short sentences, and could do with some improvements.
  • Surprisingly no mention of tobacco, W.D. & H.O. Wills, and what the money that the Wills family gave to Bristol was used for.
  • Re-ordered, expanded and cited. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Modern history -
  • This seems to start with WW II, which is fair enough, but what happened to the first half of the 20th century (and WW I)? If they are not 'modern', then perhaps we need a consideration of the first half of 20th century in another section/subsection.
  • Whilst the first and last paragraphs are fine, the middle paragraphs are quite 'bitty' two or three short sentences, and could do with some improvements.
  • No post-tobacco (manufacturing anyway) Bristol.
  • WP:lead states 'In the 20th century, Bristol was in the forefront of aircraft manufacture and the city became an important financial centre. But no mention of financial services (banks and insurance), which is currently shrinking, but its been there for possibly 20 or so years.
  • Aircraft manufacture seems to be 'dismissed' as WW II bombing, Concorde, and Airbus. No discussion of what was (is) leading edge, no mention of Rolls Royce and nothing pre- or post- BAC (well apart from the word 'Airbus').
  • RE written expanded and cited. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Its quite good as an introduction (but see next point), which is only part of its function, but it almost entirely ignores the requirement to provide a summary of the mains points of the article.
  • The lead gives a good build up , i.e. 'In the 20th century, Bristol was in the forefront of aircraft manufacture and the city became an important financial centre', but fails to deliver financial services and 'forefront' is barely mentioned.
  • Other points -
  • Your sections seem quite logical and you have covered most points (and I've suggested some improvements), but there is no mention of the growth of the city.
  • I would have expected a 'potted' discussion of the original area of the medieval city (town) and how it grow by initially sucking in areas such as Clifton, etc, and then the 1950s/1960s estates, such as Hartcliffe and then some mention of Greater Bristol which seems to have its origins in the mid 1970s reorganisation of local government (and Avon county).
  • See for instance History of Manchester and (in particular) how they cover the bits that are not in this history.
  • I'm looking at these points over the next few days. Thanks for the input so far. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As forecast at the start, I'm putting the article On Hold to provide time for these points to be addressed.

I might have missed some points and I might and got some wrong, if you disgree we can discuss it here; otherwise this is what I think is needed for GA.Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks Pyrotec, plenty for me to act on, which I will do over the next four days or so. I may come back with some questions. Thanks for such a thorough approach. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate your taking another look now - I think the points above have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


The article has been considerably improved in scope over the last few days.Pyrotec (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A wide-ranging article on the History of British.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced with over 100 in-line citations.
    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:

Congratulations on the quality of the article and your work over the last few days. I'm happy to award this article GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)