Talk:Pulteney Bridge/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) 17:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Image licensing seems fine, but I'm rather astonished that as one of this bridge's main claims to fame is the shops that line it there's no picture of the interior.

The insides of the shops are not (in my opinion) any different to other shops - I've not been in all of them but can nip over & take some photos if required.— Rod ^talk 19:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean the insides of the shops, I mean a view down the bridge showing the shops. Malleus Fatuorum 19:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK how about this one (north side shops)?— Rod ^talk 19:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would do fine, as would the second image you linked to below. Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"Within 20 years alterations were made that expanded the shops and changed the façades. The facades of what? The shops or the bridge?

Checking back in the Manco source (p137) it says that in 1792 the shops were combined into a smaller number of larger units and "Adam's recesed columned windows were converted to bays, with larger bay windows replacing the west end porticos" - so I guess it was the facades of the shops - but this would have changed the general appearance of the bridge. Manco says "No doubt it all made sound commercial sense, but Adam's street elevations were ruined".— Rod ^talk 19:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The bridge is now 300 metres (980 ft) long and 18 metres (58 ft) wide with shops on both sides." Why do we need to be told again that the bridge has shops on both sides?

Removed.— Rod ^talk 19:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"... which has contributed to its prominence as a site for tourists. Rather strange phrasing. "Which has enhanced its value as a tourist attraction"?

Changed — Rod ^talk 19:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Over the next century alterations to the shops included cantilevered extensions on the bridge's north and south faces." From the pictures, I can't see any evidence of cantilevering on the south side. Also, the bridge appears to have a pitched roof. Does it, or is it open to the elements?

My reading is that the shops cantileverd out on both north and south sides, but during the first half of the 20th century (ie before the Festival of Britain in 1951) they were removed from the south side. The rows of shops on both sides have pitched roofs. Do the pics here or here help - if so one of them could be added.— Rod ^talk 19:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They do, and that second one in particular is just what I suggesting above. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Design and construction

"The rural Bathwick estate, which they inherited in 1767 ...". Who is "they" referring to? Didn't Frances's husband William die three years earlier?

William Pulteney, 1st Earl of Bath died in 1764 & the land on the north east of the river (ie Bathwick) was inherited by Frances - I believe it took the 3 years for the inheritance to be resolved.— Rod ^talk 19:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how "they" can be appropriate when one of the parties is dead. Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "they" relates to Frances & her husband William (he took the name Pulteney after their marriage) .— Rod ^talk 19:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but as he was dead by 1767 he couldn't possibly have inherited anything. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I might be being thick here, but I don't think William the 5th Baronet (who married Frances) died until 1805. It was William the 1st earl who died in 1764.— Rod ^talk 19:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, two William Pulteneys, I see now; it was me being thick, not you. But unless I'm being thick again there's some confusion about singular and plural in "Their involvement is recalled by Great Pulteney Street in Bathwick, while Henrietta Street and Laura Place were named after his daughter." Were William and Frances jointly involved in the plans for the new suburb and the bridge, rather than just William as the preceding "He" suggested? And how many names did his daughter have? Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably my poor English skills. My understanding is that they jointly owned the Bathwick estate (so "their" involvement) but he is named as commissioning the construction in some documents - I'm not sure of the legal status of males & females in contracts in the 18th century. If you can suggest a better form of words that would be great. The offspring of William (5th Baronet) is at Sir William Pulteney, 5th Baronet. His daughter was Henrietta Laura Johnstone but her name changed to Henrietta Laura Pulteney. Just to complicate matters Frances died in 1782 & he married again.— Rod ^talk 21:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a little tweak there, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Initial plans by Thomas Paty, which did not include the shops, estimated to cost £4,569, were rejected." The way that's written makes it seem as if it was the shops that would have cost £4,569, which I suspect isn't what you mean.

Reworded— Rod ^talk 17:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The working drawings are in the Sir John Soane's Museum in London." We already said this, right at the start of this section.

Removed— Rod ^talk 17:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Initial plans which did not include the shops, drawn up by Thomas Paty, and estimated to cost £4,569, were rejected." I can't see any mention of that figure of £4,569 in the cited source, or the shops.

I have changed the reference to the Manco article which does include this detail.— Rod ^talk 08:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The work of the Pulteneys is memorialised by Great Pulteney Street in Bathwick, and Henrietta Street and Laura Place, named after their daughter Henrietta Laura Johnstone." The source provided only confirms that Laura Street is named after their daughter, not Henrietta Street.

Reference (Holburne Museum) added which supports the claim re Henrietta street.— Rod ^talk 08:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Development

"The scheduling of the bridge as an ancient monument in 1936 was replaced in 1955 with its designation as a Grade I listed building." If the bridge is no longer an ancient monument, then is it really worth mentioning in the lead that it used to be?

Just confirming that it is not now a scheduled monument - [1]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1936 the bridge became scheduled as a national monument." What's a "national monument"? It's called an "ancient monument" later in the section, uncapitalised, as opposed to the "Ancient monument" in the lead. We need to be consistent.

I've removed it from the lead & hopefully made it consistent in this section.— Rod ^talk 17:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term used in 1936 would have been Ancient Monument - the term scheduled monument relates to the current legislation, which does not cover the bridge. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I wasn't aware of that - now changed.— Rod ^talk 19:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good source for the 1936 date, etc., is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

"On this southern side, the buildings is of a principle floor at street level, with a low mezzanine, separated by stone banding, above." Something not quite right there.

Sorry I don't quite see the problem here.— Rod ^talk 17:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... the buildings is ..."? Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with that? I think it sounds quite professional - Pevssneresque one might almost say. Giano 18:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now changed.— Rod ^talk 18:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure that Gene Gill Miniatures can be used as a reliable source for this statement: "The city council bought several of the shops and made plans for the restoration of the original façade." If that were true, I'd have expected to see it mentioned in the council's response to the planning application, ref #10. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this site has it as well and they refer back to the a piece by Manco - either of those eany good?.— Rod ^talk 21:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Manco site would be fine as a source I think. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second ref added.— Rod ^talk 08:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Nineteenth-century shopkeepers altered windows, or cantilevered out over the river as the fancy took them." and the source says "19th-century shopkeepers altered windows, or cantilevered extensions out over the river as the fancy took them." That's obviously a direct copy and paste.

I have reworded this one and been through looking for other copyvio/close paraphrasing issues and adding other references to support claims. One deadlink found which I'm trying to replace.— Rod ^talk 08:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlink replaced.— Rod ^talk 09:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit despondent about this nomination yesterday after chasing up a few of the sources, and I guarantee it's only a matter of time before someone slaps a {{citation needed}} tag at the end of the third paragraph of the Architecture section. But I'm going to be bold and consider that a general description of the architecture is analogous to the plot summary for a novel, which is not required to be cited except for direct quotations. So I think we're done here now. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.