Talk:Glastonbury Abbey/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 08:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Beginning read through.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• "rich and powerful". Please mention the rich and powerful further down when you say rich below. was a monastery will suffice in the opening sentence for neutrality purposes.
• Infobox. No Somerset pin map?
• draionage? Is that a typo?
• "Since at least the 12th century the Glastonbury area was frequently associated with the legend of King Arthur". From instead of since would seem better in the tense used here.

Annexation to Bath and Wells

• No need to link King Arthur again.

History in general

Nothing after the 16th century? Just completely abandoned?

Ruins

• Why is this section empty except for the panorama image?

Bottom sections

My feeling here is that you should unite library and Abbey Retreat House and the current Grade status and such into a section on architecture or "Architecture and ruins". I would have expected to have seen a section on its architecture, dimensions, buildings aside from the retreat house such as the kitchen and its furnishings. Does this information exist? Anyway I'd merge those section into an architecture and I'd move the rest of the current status "The ruins of Glastonbury Abbey were purchased by the Bath and Wells Diocesan Trust in 1908" to the pilgrimage mention to the end of the history section in a modern history sub section. I am prepared to pass this providing the architectural coverage is considerably improved as I feel a good article on this would have a more satisfactory coverage of the buildings and architecture itself. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. I have (hopefully) dealt with the issues down to history in general. I am unclear about the suggestions to combine subsequent sections. The library and retreat house are really separate concepts and I don't think they would work together as a single sub head. I can do a modern history section (based on the current status section) and look for info on the dimensions etc but the retreat house doesn't really fit as it was only built around 1830 - could move that into the decline section - what do you think?— Rod ^talk 11:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll show you what I mean shortly. If you disagree feel free to revert. OK? All it needs now is a bit more on its architecture.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I can go with that structure, apart from the bunching of pictures it causes. I'm having problems with dimensions etc for the ruins. The site I think they are at on the Arts & Humanities Data Service ie archaeology reports is down at present but I will keep trying.— Rod ^talk 12:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I was thinking of just some basic details such as site area, the dimensions of the main abbey buildings, brief description of design like arches and anything else. Sometimes the British History website has some details, you could try looking there? Anything you missed here? Here's more good sources on architecture here and here, This book could probably be obtained from a library if you have any intentions to develop to to FA. I can leave this open for a few days, a week or two even while you look through such sources and try to write a sound architecture section. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added the information with dimensions etc that I can find. I still haven't been able to find the height of the remaining stonework. The full extent of the precincts etc may be identified in the current project and geophyics, I've mentioned in the article, but results are not published yet. Is there anything else you think it needs?— Rod ^talk 17:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Good job, that'll suffice for GA. One last thing, can you add a comma in the notes and change page to p. and change e.g Bond, 1920 page 22 to Bond, 1920, p.22 ? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Think I've got all the page nos.— Rod ^talk 20:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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:

Article now meets GA criteria in my opinion with an adequate balance of History and Architecture. I feel if this is ever to pass a FA it needs to be far more comprehensive with a lot more book research, but it is good enough for GA. Good work today Rod.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)