Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:36, 26 September 2009.

Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset

 * Nominator(s): &mdash; Rod talk 21:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria, including suitable graphics (with ALT tags) and supporting citations. It is the 7th in the series Grade I listed buildings in Somerset and follows the format of Grade I listed buildings in South Somerset which is the most recently promoted. &mdash; Rod talk 21:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I noticed that no-one had commented on this and I have to say that overall it is very good with just a few comments. I also corrected a few typos that it wasn't worth writing out a comment for. Boissière (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that the county of Avon was created in 1974 not abolished.
 * "Outside the city of Bath most of the buildings are..." You might want to qualify the word buildings with listed (or similar) just to make it clear that we are still talking about those in the list.
 * In the list it would seem that the default order is based on the location (which is fine) but this column isn't sortable so you can't get back to the initial order.
 * I am not sure that it is usual to put a Category into a See Also section, especially as the page is already in the category.


 * Response - thanks for the comments (& edits). I believe Avon, outside of the city and See also are dealt with. I've made location sortable, however this doesn't put them quite back into original order as they were done with Bath first & then the rest. As the street or area is included when they are resorted some of the villages appear earlier in the list - do you think I need to make these return to their original order?&mdash; Rod talk 20:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is particularly necessary - as there is no 'right' order for the buildings anyway I don't think that it particularly matters that one can get back to the exact original order that has been chosen.Boissière (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, support. Boissière (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments  from
 * I made a few minor tweaks to the lead, hope they look OK.
 * Thanks great


 * "he oldest sites within Bath are the Roman Baths, which were provided with their foundation piles" Not sure what "provided" here means here.
 * I've tried to clarify this. The spring was used for bathing before the romans but it was them which put in foundations (on piles into the mud).


 * No page numbers or ISBN for ref 13 (Georgian Summer)? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added
 * Response. Thanks for these comments (& your edits) hopefully all now addressed?&mdash; Rod talk 08:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes http://www.buildinghistory.org/bath/index.shtml reliable? I lean reliable, considering the author's background, but it would help to know that the ref isn't used for anything controversial or obscure.
 * Jean Manco is a well known & respected author on local architecture. A list of some of her publications (books, journals & for official bodies is available here). (see also User:Genie). The reference is about the period and ornamentation of Bath Abbey, the period & style is supported by the English Heritage ref given & I've added a journal ref which talks about the ornamentation.
 * Should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.essential-architecture.com/STYLE/STY-E02.htm reliable?
 * I can't find the ownership details of this site so I've replaced it with a reference to Gadd's book


 * http://www.plumbingworld.com/historyroman.html – I'd prefer if the actual magazine article were used (there's always the possibility for transcription erros), but won't push this too hard if it can't be done.
 * I do not have access to the original hard copy of Plumbing & Mechanical magazine, July 1986 so am just going by the web page. Therefore I've added another ref to the local council document "City of Bath World Heritage Site Management Plan" which talks about Roman involvement: "Evidence of pre-Roman timber lining was found at one of the springs suggesting a more formal arrangement than previously thought" & "The temple was constructed in 60-70 AD and the bathing complex was gradually built up over the next 300 years".
 * Should also be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Spell out HMSO in the publisher. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done HMSO = Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
 * Response - Hopefully all sources can now be considered reliable?&mdash; Rod talk 10:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I like this list but would find it easier to use if the architects sorted by surname rather than by first name, with "unknown" at the end.  There are two blank spaces - should they be "unknown"? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response - Thanks for the comment. The two blanks are not known to me & I can't find them in any of my sources - I was hoping someone would be able to add these, but can add unknown. As far as sorting the list by surname - I could add the sort template, but might run into problems with those where more than one architect is identified.&mdash; Rod talk 12:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I sympathise, but it looks a bit odd when the sort leads to a string of "unknown"s followed by "William Killigrew and John Wood, the Elder". When there is more than one architect, how about using the more prominent first, I guess often this will be one of the John Woods?  Then it would sort, for example, Wood, John the Elder, and John Pinch.  Just a thought.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I've sorted by first named architect in the sources which is generally the one with most input or initial idea. Take a look & see if this is what you intended?&mdash; Rod talk 14:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that if you're going to do this in this list, you should probably implement this style of sorting in all the other listed building lists you've written. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The other lists don't include architects as the vast majority of the buildings are Norman(ish) churches, castles & manor houses (pre 1700) & would all say unknown.&mdash; Rod talk 15:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the clarification. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Support. Thanks, that's great. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Hassocks: Another high-quality list in this topic. As with previous lists for other districts, all content is good, individual articles are present for each building, architectural descriptions are sound, referencing is strong and so on; there are only some minor formatting-type things to think about.

Lead
 * Around 1770 the neoclassical architect Robert Adam designed Pulteney Bridge, using as the prototype for the three-arched bridge spanning the Avon an original, but unused, design by Palladio for the Rialto Bridge in Venice. is difficult to parse. Try something like: Around 1770 the neoclassical architect Robert Adam designed Pulteney Bridge, a three-arched bridge spanning the Avon.  He (used/employed/chose) as his protoype an original, but unused, design by Palladio for the Rialto Bridge in Venice.
 * Done - your prose is clearer than mine.


 * In c. 1789 in the Great Pulteney Street sentence of the last paragraph, the "c." has not been italicised, but it has in the table. I believe the MOS prefers plain text to italics for this abbreviation.  Also, just for this first instance of the abbreviation, you may wish to use the circa template.  This takes care of the non-breaking space and provides a wikilink to Circa.  c. 1789 gives c. 1789.
 * Done - I wasn't aware of this template- In previous of these FL nominations I have been asked to use italics for c.

Table
 * Sorting all works properly.
 * In The Grand Pump Room, a semicolon between Baldwin and completed would help.
 * Done


 * There is inconsistency in the representation of number ranges in listings consisting of several buildings in a street. For example, 1-8 Bath Street but 1 to 30 The Circus.  If you decide to go with the former, an en-dash is needed rather than a hyphen (thus 1–8 Bath Street).
 * Done I've used "to" (hopefully throughout) as I've never got my head around the importance of the n dash m dash debate


 * In Church of St Bartholomew in Ubley, there's a stray comma.
 * Done


 * In the "Location" column, I notice you are sorting the Bath entries alphabetically by street/square/etc. name (good method, of which I approve). Should Assembly Rooms, Church of St Paul, The Guildhall, Prior Park, Bath and Palladian Bridge be sorted in the same way, then?  I suppose you have put them at the bottom because their locations are not streets as such, but it looks a little odd.  This is more of an observation than something to correct, though!  Also, Widcombe Manor House seems to be out of order.
 * I've moved Widcombe Manor House - this was because the street was included when the list was originally created - I struggled long & hard to try to find a way to organise all the Bath locations - all non Bath come at the end, but as discussed above does strange things with the sorting.


 * In Wood Street: for consistency, Wood St → Wood Street in the "Location" column. Same applies to instances of Cheap St and Milsom St elsewhere.
 * Done (hopefully I've got them all now)


 * In Summerhill: in the "Location" column, Sion Hill Place Bath lacks a comma.
 * Done

Notes
 * In current Note 12, Numbers 14 to 27 → 14 to 27 (for consistency).
 * I presume this comment is about the capitalisation of "N" if so done, if not could you explain

Refs
 * Current ref [1]: Her Majesty's Stationary Office → Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
 * Done


 * Refs from the BANES council website (www.bathnes.gov.uk) have inconsistency in their publisher info. For example, current ref [2] shows "Bath and North East Somerset Council" (italicised), current ref [5] shows "Bath and North East Somerset" (unitalicised) and current ref [7] shows "Bath and North East Somerset" (italicised).  Pls check all instances and format in one way; I would say, for consistency with other refs, that "Bath and North East Somerset Council" (unitalicised) is the way to go.
 * Done - this was because in some places it was under work= & in others publisher= - hopefully all sorted now


 * In current ref [11], DOI has been repeated, possibly because of the way the cite template has been filled in.
 * Done


 * Current ref [13]: pp. 50. → p. 50.
 * Done - pages in the template


 * Current ref [17]: use an en-dash in the "1600-1840" date.
 * I think I've done this but can't see any difference - I told you I can't get my head around this.


 * En-dashes rather than hyphens in building number ranges in various refs too (annoyingly fiddly process—sorry!)
 * I hope these all now use "to"


 * Current ref [100]: remove the extra space after the word Priory.
 * Done


 * Current ref [116]: double-check the title of the book.
 * Done

I'll keep this FLC on watch. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  20:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Response - thank you for your sharp eyes and helpful comments. I hope they have all been addressed & sorry for my inability with n dash & m dash (I've looked at Dash & still can't understand why people get so het up about this).&mdash; Rod talk 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too; after several years I have finally learnt the "rules" for dashes, but never really established the purpose! All alterations look fine; I corrected a minor typo.  Sorry for being ambiguous on my comment under "Notes"; the decapitalisation was the intended meaning.  Support accordingly.   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.