Talk:Cleeve Abbey

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "MRJames" :
  • . Much of the abbey's [[Encaustic tile|medieval tiled flooring]] remains. Other major survivals include the abbey gatehouse, which still provides entrance to the visitor, the moat and fishponds. Cleeve is open to the public. The remains of the buildings have been designated by [[English Heritage]] as a grade I [[listed building]], and it is listed as a [[Scheduled Ancient Monument]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=264814|title=Cleeve Abbey|work=Images of England|publisher=English Heritage|accessdate=2008-07-13}}
  • {{cite book|last=James|first=Montagu Rhodes|title=Abbeys|publisher=The Ballantyne Press|date=1926|pages=124-126}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've now fixed this - it was a missing "/" in the ref reuse template.— Rod ^talk 13:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sabrebd (talk · contribs) 23:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC) I will be starting the review in the next couple of days. Congratulations on all the good work so far.--SabreBD (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial thoughts. The article looks fine in most respects on first reading. There may be a few issues about sources. Some sentences, which might be disputed, are without sources. I suspect that the citation just before them covers the material, but it would be better if the citation was at the end of the section or sentence, just to that is clear. If they are not covered then they need sourcing. More to follow.--SabreBD (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): 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.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Are there references for the end of the first three paragraphs in Abbey buildings section and the first paragraphs of Present day and cultural references sections?

Some minor suggestions:

• In Foundation, first sentence, could you name the king?
• In Monastic history, it might help to reader to explain that declining numbers are brothers.
• There are a few places where language could be a bit more economical, e.g. "they could claim any shipwrecks which washed up on the shore of their lands" could be "they could claim shipwrecks on the shore their lands" and "right up until the eve of the Dissolution" could just be "to the eve of the Dissolution".--SabreBD (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Some of the reverences were easy as I have the guidebook by Harrison; however I have not (yet) found a source to support the claim that it is a classic Cistercian plan, but several other sites can be see to have a similar layout. I've made the other changes those as you have suggested. I have in the past been accused of being " bit wordy" so if there are other examples please point them out and I will correct them.— Rod ^talk 21:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look though for anything "wordy" if that is OK. Other than that and the one reference that it would be nice to get, we are pretty much there I think.--SabreBD (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've found a source which says "usual" cistercian plan - so I've changed the wording.— Rod ^talk 16:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Great I had a look, but this better than what I found.--SabreBD (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see anything else in the text that can be obviously improved. It is well-written, balanced and has good coverage. I am happy to promote this to GA. Well done.--SabreBD (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)