# Talk:High Street, Bristol

This review is transcluded from Talk:High Street, Bristol/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 14:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 
Couple unsourced paragraphs, especially "Sites of interest". Source #2 looks like it might be interpreted a little too much. I can't judge most of the stuff sourced to books for lack of access. #10 probably merits a pagenumber. Lead is unsourced and not supported anywhere else.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Didn't notice any close paraphrase or plagiarism, with the caveat that I can't read the book sources.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
The article is pretty much all about history and little about the present-day state of the street.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
I wonder about the license of File:St Nicholas' Church, Bristol, BRO Picbox-2-BSt-91a, 1250x1250.jpg seeing as we don't know publication date or life expectancy of the photographer.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Many thanks for your constructive comments.

I have:
* Sourced the paragraphs in 'Sites of interest';
* Added a page number to Ref 10 (as was);
* Sourced the lead;
* Added a new section 'High Street today'.

I take your point about over-interpreting Millerd's Map. The trouble is, I'm trying to prove a negative - that nothing much happened - which is difficult. It would be a shame to lose the point though, IMO.
I have also added a Ref for the statement about the house-numbering scheme. This again is not ideal because you need to zoom in to the EH map to see the house numbers. but without this information the 'Listed buildings' table would possibly confuse people who were more accustomed to the European scheme.

Please let me know if I've missed anything or if more work is required

RedSquirrel (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Some sentences are still unsourced, and the image license question is unresolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.
I think everything is referenced now. If there is anything else that needs sorting can you please be specific? The image was published by the Bristol Record Office, a reputable public body who are sensitive to copyright issues and cautious about which elements of their extensive collections they publish. Their statement: 'We are working to make our holdings more accessible to the public by engaging directly with Wikipedia'.RedSquirrel (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
https://bristolcivicsociety.org.uk/about-us/past-issues/257-castle-park-west-end.html is being used to source "and its junction with Wine Street was turned into a short dual carriageway which diverted traffic away from the original crossroads with Corn Street and Broad Street." but to me the source reads like they are talking about a future plan rather than its present-day state. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The Civic Society were criticising a future plan because it did not seek to remove the existing dual carriageway; thus they said:
The Society argues for:[...]removing the ironic length of dual carriageway
as opposed to:
The Society argues for:[...]removing the proposed length of dual carriageway
This current Google image shows why they described it so: https://goo.gl/maps/ikAbsU9NX3C2 . It is hardly worth the name, being only a few metres in length.
The other citation for that paragraph is from a chronology of events which reads: [September 1963]High St/Wine St corner: traffic lights removed for new roadway
Page 6 of Ref.14 has:The tightening of the junction at High Street and Wine Street offers an opportunity to introduce a focal building and exceptional public space
So the crossroads was altered in 1963 and a new roadway was made; that roadway was the 'ironic' dual carriageway which the Civic Society and the City Council would wish to see removed.
I can see that none of these pieces of evidence on its own makes a 100% watertight case for there being a short length of dual carriageway, ironic or otherwise, linking High Street with Wine Street but put together I hope you will agree that they make a strong circumstantial one.
RedSquirrel (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, then. This (barely) passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and help RedSquirrel (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)