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

The article was promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

---

Buildings and architecture of Bristol[edit]

This article describes 1000 years of architecture within the British city of Bristol, and illustrates it with examples of notable buildings, supported by suitable images. It achieved GA status in June and has had a peer review by Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture form which issues raised have been addressed. Within the last month it has also been copyedited by two users not otherwise involved in writing the article. Although I have written much of the article it has been a collaborative effort and, I believe, it is now comprehensive, neutral, well written and supported by extensive citations - meeting the FA criteria. — Rod ^talk 10:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, please see the instructions at WP:FAC and archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • Response - done but I'm not sure I've done it correctly.— Rod ^talk 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Support 1b. I'd asked at peer review for research and a mention of the slave trade and how it related to Bristol architecture (it was a wealth creator at the very least) this hasn't been done. Bristol and Liverpool were the two most significant British ports of the slave triangle as evidenced here and this article shouldn't duck that. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • Response Thanks - I've now tried to address this in the Stuart & Georgian architecture sections - although there appears to be little naming specific buildings with links to the trade. Although I would argue the buildings themselves are not political, I agree their construction needs to be put in historical and social context, therefore I have tried to do this in a balanced way with comment about the merchants who profited from the slave trade and the abolitionists who were also active in the city. Perhaps you would take another look and see if this meets your concerns?— Rod ^talk 17:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now excellent - the balance with the abolitionists is a particularly nice touch. --Mcginnly | Natter 21:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—excellent. I hope these contibutors zip up the standard of nominations on UK cites and regions. Tony (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not yet. Factual, and well-researched, although I've seen articles with more sources opposed; but still less than compelling writing. The first paragraph is: Bristol is the largest city in South West England. It has an eclectic mix of architectural styles reflecting medievalism, industrialism, war-time destruction, and 20th century regeneration. First, this is one sentence, cut in half like the magician's lady; second, what exactly does reflecting medievalism mean? For that matter, does medievalism mean fourteenth century remains, or does it mean Pugin?
• We do not need to incorporate the History of Bristol into this article; and what we do include, we should make clear. Say that Bristol Castle was destroyed at Cromwell's order; don't make the reader deduce it. (And if he ordered the destruction in 1656, what does that have to do with the Royalist occupation, more than a decade earlier? ) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response: A couple of fair points I suppose. I've taken it upon myself to change the lead slightly; "reflecting" does perhaps seem a bit strange. As for what medievalism means, surely following the wikilink makes that clear? --Malleus Fatuarum 01:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Response: I've also taken it upon myself to remove the link between the Royalist occupation of the castle and Cromwell's ordering of its destruction. It seemed tenuous, and anyway, as you say, it's history, not relevant to the subject of this article. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominators Response I hope that the changes already made and responses above satisfy your concerns. I would agree that we do not need to replicate the History of Bristol, however there is a need, as outlined above, to place the buildings in their socio-political context. Are there any other issues you feel we still need to address?— Rod ^talk 07:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • That's definitely better, but the first sentence still needs thought. "War-time destruction" is not a style; and medievalism does not, properly speaking, mean medieval, but imitation medieval. I'll take a longer look later. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response: Agreed. I've re-written the first part of the lead to correct that. I hope you think it's OK now. --Malleus Fatuarum 15:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Much better, and the mention of Bristol Byzantine in the lead is a nice touch. I still don't have time to read through today. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment amounting to weak support. I'm still not sure that Bristol Castle and the local abolitionist movement fit perfectly into this article, but there's more duct tape and piano wire holding them on now. In the long run, Defences of Bristol may work better. But this is now a matter of slightly differing editorial judgment, not something that would be an embarassment on the front page, which is our de facto standard. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the reference to Robert Southey under this head. The claim about the busts in Bristol Cathedral implies two assertions:
    • That his bust is in the Cathedral (itself unsourced, but probable)
    • That it is there to commemorate his abolitionism, which ODNB does not even mention.

  I will welcome this back with a source for both assertions; but now it has neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I have added Southey back in with the addition of a reference from the BBC which covers both claims see "In the footsteps of Bristol's abolitionists". BBC Bristol. Retrieved 2007-10-17. which in section 2 says "Memorials to several people pertinent to the abolition cause can be found in Bristol Cathedral, including a bust of Robert Southey." I hope this meets the needs?— Rod ^talk 07:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No changed to Yes Leranedo 06:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I only vote yes or no, whether it be weak or strong. While the article reads acceptably, though a bit too dry, dull, and minutia-ridden for my taste (though I'm sure others would appreciate it), if this GA status article can be featured on the Today's Featured Articles, then I can see no significant enough reason to maybe vote yes. I would like to see more images if possible, especially since this is an architecture-related article, it would be helpful. External links to obtain more information is crucial, perhaps a few to images?
• Some sections of the article does not flow smoothly. Consider: "Bristol occupies a strategic position between two rivers. The city was defended in medieval times by..." It's too sudden of a shift and should be re-worded. The article needs to stay focus on Bristol architecture and not lead/introduce the section with "Bristol occupies a strategic position between two rivers." That's geographical in nature. Focus on the architecture.

Response: I've removed the reference to Bristol's position between two rivers, as I agree that it added very little to the subject of this article. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Having dates in the Contents would also be nice as this allows readers to quickly select sections based on whichever era they are interested in. The article s not complete enough, though getting there, considering that the scope is a span of 1000 years. Leranedo 11:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I have added approximate dates to the section titles so that they appear in the contents list. If I add any more pictures this is likely to "squeeze" the text which is criticised in the manual of style. I don't quite understand the comment about GA articles appearing as Today's Featured Articles, I thought only FA articles could appear in this way?— Rod ^talk 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind that comment. I was mistaken. Changed to yes, but it still needs content-decision improvements, among others. Leranedo 06:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.