Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/Buildings and architecture of Bristol/Archive 1

Buildings and architecture of Bristol
This article doesn't cover a specific building but tries to cover 1000years of architectural development across the city of Bristol. It has recently become a GA but I'd welcome advice re style and structure. The emphasis is definitely on the defensive and religious buildings, and mansions rather than ordinary housing - as these buildings tend to be Listed buildings (UK system of classification) and have most written about them - but is the balance right? Any comments appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 19:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Lazy review by Mcginnly - so we just run it through a machine and see what it says - treat with salt........

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mcginnly | Natter 09:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 600ft, use 600 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 600&amp;nbsp;ft.[?]
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Guide to layout.[?]
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Considered review by Mcginnly
 * 1) No mention of The Clerical Medical building They may be ugly and unloved, but British brutalism is quite important in post-war architectural discourse.
 * 2) This as a Grade II* might perhaps get a mention; and maybe this too.
 * 3) "A harbourside concert hall by architects Behnisch & Partners was planned although an Arts Council decision cut the funding and the project has never been revived" - Could we get some dates for this?
 * 4) "In the early 19th century the romantic medieval gothic style 'appeared as a backlash' to the symmetry of Palladianism" There's a few things in this section - It's a bit of an oversimplification to describe the gothic revival as simply a backlash to palladianism, there was other stuff going on there about the industrial revolution, religion, aesthetic theory, Ruskin etc. So another sentence just to give a bit more nuance would be good. Also I think the paragraphs would benefit from a few more links to some of the articles in this category Category:Revival architectural styles. I'd give a few more examples of fine Victorian buildings, even if they are now destroyed. I'd probably put the suspension bridge under 'industrial architecture and civil engineering'. Bristol Byzantine - I've never heard of that, cool! I've learnt something :-) (I've linked it in Neo-Byzantine architecture.
 * 5) "John Nash, master of the Picturesque style" - Admittedly, I'm chronologically a little out of my comfort zone here, but I thought Nash was a master of the Regency style? Perhaps in the town he was Regency and in the country he was Picturesque? Check please.
 * 6) It is my understanding that Bristol, like Liverpool (my alma mater) generated a good deal of it's wealth from the slave trade. The Tudor, Stuart and Georgian should a. perhaps mention to what extent this income generated construction. b.unrelated to this, but if significantly large neighbourhoods were built under the patronage of single individuals - mention those individuals.
 * 7) Other than these little nit-pickers, its a really fine article. Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 09:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Response. Thanks for your helpful comments. I've dealt with many of the formatting issues, vague terms etc from the automated review. Turning to the considerered comments.. I will revisit the library in connection with British brutalism, Nash & slave trade patronage of neighbourhoods. The new council hose & Wills tower are both already mentioned. Thanks again&mdash; Rod talk 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Response 2 Thanks for your comments - I've now had a chance to go back to the books and have revised several of the sections mentioned - I hope you think they help?&mdash; Rod talk 11:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)