# Talk:Bruton Dovecote

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bruton Dovecote/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Surely it would be more typical to refer to it as a scheduled monument in the lead, rather than as an ancient monument?
I always used to use scheduled ancient monument however that term seems to have fallen out of favour. Changed.— Rod talk 18:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
In both the lead and the history section, I feel we could be a bit clearer about what the building was before it was a dovecote. I appreciate that the original purpose is is not really known, but I think this could be made clearer.
The sources I've read conflict on this so I've tried to represent the (widely) different claims.— Rod talk 18:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"coursed oolitic" - Jargon?
wikilinked oolitic limestone. Coursed just means roughly cut rather than "dressed" stone.— Rod talk 18:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Is Pigeoncote.com a reliable source? What about Somerset Routes?
I've removed Pigeoncote.com - the claim about the usage is covered by the next reference. "Somerset Routes is a partnership project between Somerset County Council and the Museums in Somerset group, which has been running since 2008. It has been funded by Renaissance in the Regions, a programme of support for museums across the country provided by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA)." so reasonable provenance, but again the claim it is used for is also supported by 2 other citations.— Rod talk 18:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting little article worth referencing here, perhaps?
Thanks added as it supports the later date - however it could be argued that the timber of the window may have been added when the structure was renovated rather than when it was originally built.— Rod talk 19:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Are there not any more architectural details in the various records you cite? The article does feel a bit short.
I've had another look more more architecture but most of the sources reproduce the same basic details which are already included in the article.— Rod talk 19:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Possibly a useful reference:
"New lease of life for Bruton Dovecote". Fosse Way Magazine. 18 March 2011. p. 2.

Improvement works to Bruton's historic Dovecote and the nearby Jubilee Park were revealed this week.

The £124,000 project is a joint venture between Bruton the Way Forward, the Bruton Trust and Dovecote owner the National Trust. The scheme, which was launched in 2005, has also received support from South Somerset District Council, Bruton Town Council, Viridor and the Somerset Market Towns Forum.

The revamp to make the Dovecote building, which dates back to around 1550, safer and more accessible included complete re-pointing and the installation of blacksmith-made gates. Parking has been improved, a stone wall has been made safe and interpretation boards have been installed.

National Trust general manager Mike MacCormack said: "We are so proud to have been part of this project that makes access and understanding of this whole area easier for local people and for visitors to this wonderful little town."

Bruton Trust honorary secretary John Bishton added: "The trust is delighted to see the culmination of a thorough scheme to safeguard the iconic Dovecote along with the high quality achieved by the district council and the National Trust in building the new entrance. A 100-year decline has been halted and the building secured in its mystery for some time to come."

The 2010 - 2011 renovation work is already included refs 12-15 but another one could be added if needed.— Rod talk 19:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Another one, maybe?
"Go walking into history". Western Daily Press. 28 April 2004. p. 22.

Theatre impresario Sir Cameron Mackintosh is backing the Two Tower Challenge - a new sponsored walk to help two Somerset landmarks. The National Trust has organised the event, which will see two teams of walkers start off from King Alfred's Tower near Stourhead and St Michael's Tower at Montacute on June 13.

The teams will meet at North Cadbury, half way between the two towers, after a walk of about 14 miles.

The route will follow the Leland Trail, a network of public footpaths which cover the route taken by Leland, the Tudor antiquary, as he wandered the country making notes for a survey.

Tea and cakes will be provided at journey's end, along with free transport back to the walkers' starting points. Funds raised will go towards two restoration projects at Stourhead, the Gothic Cottage and Bruton Dovecote which are in need of structural repair, and a new computer for Montacute which will help provide better virtual access for less mobile visitors.

Sir Cameron, who lives near Stourhead, said: "This area simply would not be the same without its wealth of historic buildings and landscapes." Stourhead and Montacute House will also run a shorter, five-mile alternative route, making the event open to everyone. Registration costs £10 for adults, £5 for children and £25 for a family (two adults and up to three children).

Leland Trail is already included. Not sure one sponsored walk 10 years ago is really vital to an encyclopedia entry, but can add it if you wish.— Rod talk 19:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll be honest- I didn't read the article, I just thought there may be something interesting about the restoration/fundraising. J Milburn (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting topic. J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and sorry for the delay- I'll aim to get back to you ASAP! J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


### Second look-through
"It was at one time used as a house, possibly as a watchtower or prospect tower and as a dovecote." The use as a house isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article? How about "The structure was once used as a dovecote, and may have been a watchtower or prospect tower prior to this."
Changed.— Rod talk 20:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
"Various restoration work has been undertaken and it was investigated as a possible source of psittacosis in the 1980s." I'm not sure this makes sense- also, does the investigation need to be mentioned in the lead?
Reworded.— Rod talk 20:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
"This version of the age of the building is supported by dendrochronology carried out on a piece of timber from a window frame which was felled in 1549." The source doesn't explicitly support any version of events- to say that the study supports one view or other is OR. How about "Dendrochronological dating commissioned by the National Trust found that timber in the door and window frames came from trees felled between 1554 and 1586."
I've changed to your text (with some wikilinks).— Rod talk 20:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you have information about when the structure was listed/became a scheduled monument? These would be good additions to the history section.
It was in the infobox but I've added it to the history section as well.— Rod talk 20:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Coming together nicely. J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
So, my one remaining concern is that the article is still very short. I'd be willing to promote apart from the fact that there seem to be details in the National Heritage listings do seem to have some details not included in this article; when the article is this short, I'd really want to see everything possible- minor details about the architecture, precise details about the location, and even the reasons that the building was listed. This is now looking like a really solid article, but, given the length, I'm concerned that criterion 3 isn't met. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

OK I will look for anything else I can add - but it will not be for a couple of days as really busy at (paid) work this week.— Rod talk 21:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Take as long as you need- I won't close the review. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I've added a bit more about the location & windows. Can you suggest what else you think should be added?— Rod talk 20:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bruton Dovecote. 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/20140714144751/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadername3=Content-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B%20filename%3D297%2F965%2Fnt_acquisitions_dec2011-2%2C2.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B%20charset%3DUTF-8&blobheadervalue3=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1349117284549&ssbinary=true to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadername3=Content-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B%20filename%3D297%2F965%2Fnt_acquisitions_dec2011-2%2C2.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B%20charset%3DUTF-8&blobheadervalue3=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1349117284549&ssbinary=true
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) 18:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)