# Talk:Buildings and architecture of Bath

Hey, if u r covering the architecture here, u should cover the ha-ha below the Royal Crescent.  I am not clear if this article is substantially the same or different than another article on Bath that covered the Unesco World Heritage Site listing. doncram (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I presume you mean this pic which I told you about some months ago? I don't think there is room for it in this article but I'm happy to upload it if you think it should go somewhere?. The UNESCO WHS listing is included in Bath, Somerset as it is relevant but that article doesn't deal with the buildings & architecture in the same depth. If there is another article about it please let me know as I'm not aware of it.— Rod talk 07:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, i like the ha-ha pic which you kindly pointed me to.  Seems like a significant architectural term to me, to illustrate in an article about Bath's architecture.  Mighten't there be room?  We be'st limited only be electrons, et il y en a plutot, n'est-ce pas?  Mercie pour partager le photo de ha-ha. :) doncram (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Tis done.— Rod talk 08:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
hmm, I thought you would call this landscape architecture nowadays... and place it in a separate section...Elekhh (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Buildings and architecture of Bath/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Reviewer: SilkTork *YES! 18:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Article is stable.
Images are appropriately tagged and have captions. The length and detail of the captions varies - at times the information is quite extensive, at others the caption is fairly terse. Wikipedia:CAP#Succinctness suggests that "more than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting", while Wikipedia:CAP#Wording suggests that short captions (such as "The Forum") might be seen as trivial. I'd like to see the longer captions trimmed if possible, and the shorter ones expanded. In addition, the pacing of the images has resulted in some sandwiching, and displacing of following sections, so to comply with Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Images, some images should be moved or removed.
Response I have removed a couple of the weaker images and revised the captions - I hope this issue is now addressed?— Rod talk 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
These are not GA criteria, but additional observations: There is a huge contrast in the quality of the images themselves. Some of them are quite stunning, while others - File:Milsom Street Bath.jpg, File:BathGreenParkStationFrontMay2006WON.jpg - are cluttered and are more distracting than helpful; and others - File:Prior Park Bath Palladian Bridge.jpg, File:Bath Abbey Fan Vaulting - July 2006.jpg - would benefit from some trimming.  Images are very useful to an architecture topic, and - though I am not fond of them - it may be appropriate to have a gallery in this article - perhaps moving some of the existing images from within the body to give the article a less cluttered appearance. I also note there is only one image which is not modern - is it possible to find some other engravings or paintings to show the development of the city? SilkTork *YES! 18:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I was skimming through for a quick check on OR, feeling that would be an easy pass, given the topic, when I met this statement: "Many of the prominent architects of the day were employed in the development of the city." which looked like it should have a source, and only saw one at the end of the paragraph. Clicking on it, I ended up at [1] even though the url reads: http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/schools/historical-and-cultural-studies/irish-studies/research-projects/social-decline-and-slum-conditions.pdf So we have a dead link, and no source to support the claim. SilkTork *YES! 18:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Response I have removed the uncited sentance & revised the ref with the broken link.— Rod talk 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Another challengable claim that needs a source: "The Circus is seen as the pinnacle of Wood's work." The article needs careful reading to pick up other such statements and ensure they are sourced appropriately. SilkTork *YES! 19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Response This is from Gadd's book.— Rod talk 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Prose. There's a lot of information here, but it's not always presented clearly. There are single sentence paragraphs, and some paragraphs seem incomplete: "There are many Roman archaeological sites throughout the central area of the city, most of them about 15 feet (4.6 m) below the present city street level. The Roman Baths were built around hot springs, the only ones naturally occurring in the United Kingdom." We leave the many sites and go straight to one site - the Baths. The first sentence looks like the start of an overview of the Roman sites in Bath - but never gets there. While the second sentence belongs to a paragraph about the Baths. The final paragraph of the section is a single sentence: "The city was given defensive walls, probably in the 3rd century." But we are told no more about the walls. It would be helpful to explain that they no longer exist, and some sense of their development - that there was a stone Roman wall along with a wooden Saxon wall. And now we are creeping into broad coverage....
I feel the lead section could go into a bit more detail and pick up on some of the notable highlights of the city, such as Pulteney Bridge and the Royal Crescent (it's mentioned, but not explained). It might be helpful to pick up some points from the World Heritage listing: [2].
Broad coverage. Needs considerably more detail on the Roman buildings. SilkTork *YES! 19:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. When I first looked at this this I though - oooh, that looks good, this should be easy! But there are a few niggles. I think there's lots of potential here - but I also feel it needs a period of work. It's a big and important topic, and could probably do with a few people looking at it from various angles. I am wondering about the structure of the article - it appears more geared up as a history of the city rather than as a discussion of the buildings. Indeed, there could be a section which gives an overview of the architectural history of the city, and then sections devoted to the major buildings, or areas, or types of building, and/or major periods. Possibly. SilkTork *YES! 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Response Thanks for you comments so far I will attempt to work on the others, particularly providing citations. However I'm less sure on some of the others specifics:
Although there have been archaeological digs into roman foundations there are no other roman buildings left, so there isn't much else to describe.
I can't find much on the 3rd century walls & nothing still exists
I will attempt to expand the lead as suggested
The structure tries to provide an overview of each period (with the Georgian being far the most significant/important in Bath) and the detail on specific buildings in the articles on those buildings. I followed the general structure of Buildings and architecture of Bristol (which is an FA), but have asked at several relevant wikiprojects for others to cast an eye to see how they think it could be improved. Please allow a few days for improvements.— Rod talk 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Urban form. I think the main omission within the article -as it stands- is that it does not address urban form at all (i.e. the relationship between buildings, context). Actually Bath is remarkable exacly for the coherency, even homogenity of its built form and received World Heritage status (the whole city!) exactly for that reason.  As UNESCO puts it, for the "overall city landscape that evolved over a century in a harmonious and logical way, drawing together public and private buildings and spaces". Ultimately buildings in Bath are less remarkable individually, than as an ensemble. The article would definitively need an intro in this regard, or an expansion of its scope to include urban form (i.e. Architecture and Urban Form of Bath). Elekhh (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm always happy to give articles plenty of time to develop - and to help out if needed. I tend to only close as a fail if there is no progress. My desire is that this article becomes GA - which I feel sure it will.
Image layout and captions are now within GA criteria. Thank you for responding so promptly.
As regards the Roman buildings. The Roman temple no longer exists as a complete piece, though fragments of it have been found around Bath as parts of other buildings, and this has allowed archeologists to reconstruct a history of the structure. That bare information would be in itself useful within the article, along with another sentence or two on the building itself and its history. Currently the article has this: "Beside it a temple was constructed at the same time." Which is more of a tease than solid information. This gives a quick and easy summary. This gives a quick overview of the history of scholarly opinion on the temple (appears it was thought for a while that there were two temples). More info here.  I do feel that more can be written as there is enough information available, and a curious reader would wish to know more - especially as the World Heritage listing says: "The Roman remains ... are amongst the most famous and important Roman remains north of the Alps."  
Some sources on the city wall are given here. And this may be useful. 
I wouldn't fail an article because of the way the information is structured - unless the structure was confusing or inhibited reader's understanding. My comments on the structure are just to consider if the structure is the most helpful both for reader and editor. The Roman Baths are not just a Roman construction, but have been modified and added to over the years. If using the current time-line structure of the article, then details of the development of the baths would be scattered around the article (currently the later development of the baths are not covered - though the Kings Bath and the Pump Room, at least, need something other than a link to another page) rather than a cohesive section dealing with the development of that particular building. I think it would be easier for all involved if the structure was geared around the buildings themselves than the timeline of Bath as a whole. 
I'm pleased that others have been invited to look over the article, as I think the information gathered here is quite impressive. SilkTork *YES! 17:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Response I have made some further attempts to improve the article based on your comments and those elsewhere including expanding the lead and placing more emphasis on urban form. I am having trouble finding older images - there are lots at sites such as Bath in Time and Images of Bath however they do not have licences which would allow us to use them. I hope that some of your concerns have been met but would welcome further edits and comments to improve the article.— Rod talk 11:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Images are now acceptable for GA, so the search for older images can be left for another time. I'll certainly chip in with some edits to build up information, and make further comments as appropriate. SilkTork *YES! 12:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


### Clarification of further work needed
Could you give an indication of specific further work that is needed?

User:Peter I. Vardy has made some comments about referencing, short paragraphs, who lived where etc which I've acted on & made some 19th century engravings available which I've started to incorporate.
User:Elekhh made comment about Urban form, which I've tried to incorporate into the lead (along with UNESCO description for WHS status)
User:SilkTork made lots of comments, particularly related to Roman & Saxon ages which have been expanded.
User:Malleus Fatuorum has copy edited my prose.
I think the historical approach enables description of the development of the architecture of the city and focusing on specific buildings would duplicate the specific articles, therefore I'm now wondering what else is needed and would appreciate other comments?— Rod talk 10:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the way the article has developed. I like the additional coverage of the Roman buildings and the expansion of the Lead. Give me a moment to reflect on the focus and broad coverage aspects - which is now the only stumbling block. I am still of the opinion that it would be more helpful to the reader if the focus were on the buildings rather than the time-line. But I don't want speculation regarding the way the article is arranged to hinder a GA review if the speculation is not appropriate. It would be helpful if other people gave their view on this issue. SilkTork *YES! 16:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
From a quick reading -
a) I don't know if Late Modern is quite the right heading for 1810 onwards, by my reckoning that is hardly into the modern period at all.
b) The tourism section is semi-relevant, needs expanding to show how the famous bulidings attract tourists, maybe remove vague statements about B&Bs. ProfDEH (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I have changed Late Modern to Victorian & 20th century & added visitor numbers for some of the sites.— Rod talk 21:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of this article in bed last night (as you do!) and I'm still concerned about the structure. I'd like some more discussion about it. I was thinking of other ways of organising the material, and had something like this in mind:

Lead
Historical overview (a summary of the current article)
Roman Baths (Bath)
Georgian highlights
Royal Crescent
The Circus (Bath)
Pulteney Bridge
Bath Assembly Rooms
Transport buildings (essentially the Victorian section)
Churches
Theatres and museums
World Heritage Site (summary of when and why and what)
Bath Stone
I feel the tourism section is not relevant and should be dropped. Also that the focus of the article should always be on the buildings rather than wandering into general history. These statements could be questioned: (not exhaustive, just examples, and just for consideration:) "Areas on the south side of the River Avon such as Widcombe were originally separate settlements but became subsumed into the city.", "The opening of the Great Western Railway in 1841 removed much of the canal's traffic, and in 1852 the railway company took over its running.", "The population of the city had reached 40,020 by the time of the 1801 census, making it one of the largest cities in Britain, which was expanding up the surrounding hills." General history comments which focus on the buildings are, of course, very acceptable, and an excellent example of this is Buildings_and_architecture_of_Bath#Twentieth_century which explains very well the impact of events on the buildings.  
While the proposal sounds a lot, I don't think it is, as most of the work has already been done. If interested I could do a quick mock up on a subpage to see how it looks. SilkTork *YES! 11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I'm not sure - I think the risk of this approach could be that the contribution of key individuals eg John Wood, the Elder, John Wood, the Younger, Ralph Allen, Thomas Baldwin etc etc and the role of the spa in growth could be lost.
Are you going to put the Abbey under churches?
I would be interested to see how your proposal works, but I'm still not convinced it is the best treatment - do you have any examples of other cities where this approach is used successfully?— Rod talk 16:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The articles seem to vary, with a few using the time-line approach, but more tend to use a structure similar to the one I have proposed. Here are three examples:  Architecture of Houston, Architecture of Kansas City, Architecture of New York City. SilkTork *YES! 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
They obviously don't have the same length of history & I note that, with the exception of New York, they retain some aspects of chronology, and I still can't see any real advantage. If you want to draft something and can get consensus for it then obviously I will accept that.— Rod talk 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the article evolved amazingly in the last five days and is certainly on the right track. In terms of focus, I don't think the structure is the problem: sections by historic period and architectural style are perfectly appropriate in my opinion. I would suggest Buildings and architecture of Bristol as a guide. However, the focus on architecture is still not there. The article is very much packed with historical data, and thus reads still a bit like a history, rather than an architectural history. Several sections start with a long intro on historical events, rather than characteristics of the architecture of the period. I also agree with comments above that the Tourism section is distracting, and better be merged into the Bath article. Elekhh (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the tourism section (using some of the visitor numbers on Bath) and added some info on general architectural trends in England to the start of Georgian & Victorian sections - the others are too disparate.— Rod talk 17:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


### General comments
I've never commented on a GA talk page before, so forgive me if I'm doing this wrong or being too harsh. That said, some structural nitpicks:
The lede as currently written is awkwardly written and difficult to parse. It's too long and there are too many commas, most of which are grammatically incorrect. The description of the breadth of Bath architecture should not be from the Roman Baths to the present day (you're contrasting a building to a time frame) but from pre-Roman Celtic to postmodernism, which would be equivalent and contrasting architectural terms. The third sentence is also awkward and tortured and seems to be missing a verb, unless the article is claiming that the buildings themselves were sentient and actively "formed" the streets.
There are numerous basic spelling and grammatical errors in the body of the article. For example, "however" is misused in the very first sentence of the body. The word doesn't mean "but"; it means "on the other hand". It's a common mistake in UK English but it's still a mistake. Replace with "but" or put a semi-colon before it and a comma after it and ensure that the sentence contains a valid contrast. Another example is this sentence: "Beside the baths, a temple dedicated to Minerva[11] was constructed on a podium above a surrounding courtyard, in classical style with four large, fluted Corinthian columns." What's in classical style? The temple? The courtyard? All of it? The reader is left wondering.
The article refers to the "golden-coloured" Bath stone, but most of the stone shown in the article appears pink. Is this a fault of my monitor or of the photographs, or do the images not correctly represent Bath stone? --NellieBly (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
"a common mistake in UK English"  - if language usage is common it is no longer a mistake. That's the nature of development. However, I agree the "however" sentence was awkward, and I have amended it. SilkTork *YES! 09:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments - on GA nominations, as elsewhere, any comments which help to improve the article will be welcome. I have revised the lead slightly to take account of your comments & have asked another editor, who is mush more expert on grammar than I am to comment on "current" grammatical usage. Bath Stone is commonly described as "Honey Coloured" & looks yellowish to me, but I'm not a photo expert.— Rod talk 09:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You have presented your views clearly and neutrally. When bringing attention to possible flaws in an article one always wonders about being "harsh"; however, as long as comments are focused on the article and not on the editors, then there should be no reason to be concerned. You have done the right thing. If you feel the errors are quite small (spelling, grammar, etc), then you may make the corrections directly yourself. There is an educational value in making some comment on minor flaws that are repeated in an article - but if there is but one use, it's often quicker and easier to simply make the correction.
I don't feel the lead is too long. The lead is essentially a mini article. It has to sum up the main points of the topic - and this is a particularly rich and important topic. See WP:Lead. The lead could, however, be tightened up a bit more. Thanks for redrawing my attention to that,  and I'll have a go at tidying it up in a minute.
The stone is golden or honey-coloured. I haven't checked to see if there is a cite within the article for that as I didn't think that would be challenged - but there would be plenty of sources - [3].  SilkTork *YES! 09:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


### Focus on architecture / structure
I haven't had the time to do the mock up structure as I indicated above, and I came here this morning intending to do that; however, I am persuaded by Elekhh's comment to rethink that strategy. It may well be that what is needed is not so much a change of structure as a change of focus. I feel we are both getting at the same thing - that at the moment the article is weighed too much toward the general history of Bath. My feeling is that a restructure would be helpful as it would assist in creating the appropriate focus - however, if the article as it stands were honed with a view to a focus on the buildings then that would serve the same purpose. SilkTork *YES! 09:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed significant chunks of "general history" not specific to the form of the buildings (although it did give context about usage etc) - does this help?— Rod talk 15:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


### Final sweep
I'm just going through the article now to check everything is fine. It's a good article. I've been slightly adjusting the focus here and there to point more toward the building and architecture rather than the general history - and I feel a little more work could be done in this direction, but not enough that it would hold up the GA status. However, I have just paused as I have met a long paragraph which is uncited:
"this evolved from the Palladian revival style which became popular in the early 18th century. Georgian architecture is the name given in most English-speaking countries to the set of architectural styles current between 1720 and 1840. It is eponymous for the first four British monarchs of the House of Hanover—George I of Great Britain, George II of Great Britain, George III of the United Kingdom, and George IV of the United Kingdom—who reigned in continuous succession from August 1714 to June 1830. The styles that resulted fall within several categories. In the mainstream of Georgian style were both Palladian architecture— and its whimsical alternatives, Gothic and Chinoiserie, which were the English-speaking world's equivalent of European Rococo. It is characterized by its proportion and balance; simple mathematical ratios were used to determine the height of a window in relation to its width or the shape of a room as a double cube. "Regular" was a term of approval, implying symmetry and adherence to classical rules: the lack of symmetry, where Georgian additions were added to earlier structures, was deeply felt as a flaw. Regularity of housefronts along a street was a desirable feature of Georgian town planning. Georgian designs usually lay within the Classical orders of architecture and employed a decorative vocabulary derived from ancient Rome or Greece."
This looks like it was inserted to give some background information on Georgian architecture. Some explanation on Georgian architecture is welcome - this however is rather long and being uncited is holding up the GA process. I will remove it, and some thought can be given later as to how to re-introduce some brief cited background information on Georgian architecture. SilkTork *YES! 11:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


### Pass
Passed as a Good Article. SilkTork *YES! 11:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comprehensive review - and your edits.— Rod talk 13:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That panorama needs formatting, it is not displaying properly - if anyone knows how. ProfDEH (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Buildings and architecture of Bath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/worldheritage/3Append.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/worldheritage/2.3Des.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621205423/http://www.uquebec.ca/musique/orgues/angleterre/batha.html#English to http://www.uquebec.ca/musique/orgues/angleterre/batha.html#English
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113094712/http://www.bathmuseum.co.uk/biography.htm to http://www.bathmuseum.co.uk/biography.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080131165317/http://www.royalcrescentbath.com:80/HistoryBathatWar.htm to http://www.royalcrescentbath.com/HistoryBathatWar.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080131165322/http%3A//www.royalcrescentbath.com/HistoryRoyalCrescent%25202.htm to http://www.royalcrescentbath.com/HistoryRoyalCrescent%202.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Buildings and architecture of Bath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516100013/http://www.thecityofbath.co.uk/renaissance_bath.htm to http://www.thecityofbath.co.uk/renaissance_bath.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071109193824/http://www.widcombebenefice.org.uk/ourchurches.html to http://www.widcombebenefice.org.uk/ourchurches.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326154304/http://www.dlgarchitects.com/upload/pdf/czaUQvUAiFCgfGF1yvFry3ORIFNZ1gNDDp71tpXF.pdf to http://www.dlgarchitects.com/upload/pdf/czaUQvUAiFCgfGF1yvFry3ORIFNZ1gNDDp71tpXF.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080928081951/http://www.cityofbath.co.uk/sign/camndencrescent.html to http://www.cityofbath.co.uk/sign/camndencrescent.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012153244/http://penninewaterways.co.uk/locks.htm to http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/locks.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722062219/http://www.romanbaths.co.uk/pdf/Heritage%20Open%20Days%2009%20FINAL.pdf to http://www.romanbaths.co.uk/pdf/Heritage%20Open%20Days%2009%20FINAL.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016080908/http://www.bathforum.co.uk/1/history.html to http://www.bathforum.co.uk/1/history.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)