# Talk:The Tribunal, Glastonbury

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Tribunal, Glastonbury/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 18:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll read through and review over the next few days. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; 

"was built in the 15th century as a medieval merchant's house."  - medieval felt redundant here, as you've already given the date of its construction.
Done.— Rod talk 19:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"12th century" - should be hyphenated as an adjective I think.
Done.— Rod talk 19:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"It has been used as a merchants house " - "merchant's"
Done.— Rod talk 19:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"arched braced wooden truss roof." - a comma or two is needed here between the adjectives
Added a couple.— Rod talk 19:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"The bottom part of which dates from the Iron Age and the upper part was added in the 1st century AD." -the 1st century AD is also in the Iron age I think. I think the beginning should go "The bottom part of the bowl..."
I've changed the first part but not sure how to explain the two different ages.— Rod talk 19:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"where secular justice was administered, for Glaston Twelve Hides." I don't think you need the comma here
Comma removed.— Rod talk 19:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"formerly mistakenly identified" is it possible to say who (or when) it was mistakenly identified?
I will go looking for more info on this.— Rod talk 19:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The Somerset Historic Environment Record entry still says "The Tribunal was the courthouse of the Abbots of Glastonbury", however the more recent  history and research from EH says "The house now known as Glastonbury Tribunal owes its name to the fact that it was formerly mistakenly identified with the abbey’s tribunals, where secular justice was administered in association with the management of the abbey’s estates. However, it is possible that the house was used by one of the abbey’s officials."— Rod talk 19:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Try https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yB-0_rkhoBQC&pg=PA89&dq=The+Tribunal,+Glastonbury&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oT_JVPanGoj1UOuLhNAO&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Tribunal%2C%20Glastonbury&f=false - p.90. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this - interesting (particularly as I think I have a copy of that collection somewhere). I will add it as a reference as it seems to support the claims currently in the article.— Rod talk 20:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"In the 16th century a new facade was added to the original building." Did you need the paragraph break here? It strands a single sentence above it.
Done.— Rod talk 19:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"although it is unsure whether this is the same building" - "it is uncertain"
Done.— Rod talk 20:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"16th century ceiling panels" - again, probably needs a hyphen.
Done— Rod talk 20:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
" However, the chimney was blocked" - this needs to run "The rear room still has the remains of a large fireplace, however, the chimney was blocked" if "however" is going to carry the meaning it does here.
Thanks - done— Rod talk 20:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"a 'crannog' or man made island," - I think the MOS would have this as "crannog", in double speech marks.
Done— Rod talk 20:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
" was an iron age village " - consistency on capitalisation of Iron AGe
Done— Rod talk 20:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Worth checking for overlinking (Richard Beere and Iron Age); worth considering linking words like currency bar (or explaining what one is). Whetstone might also be worth linking. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Done Richard Beere but I can't see the overlinking on Iron Age. I've linked whtestone & added an explanation of currency bars as we don't currently have an article on them.— Rod talk 20:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk)
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Not a GA requirement, but some citations have location and publisher, others just publisher; the MOS would have "A field guide to Somerset archeology." as "A Field Guide to Somerset Archeology." (NB: is archeology spelt correctly in this instance? I think there's an A missing.) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Done.— Rod talk 17:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
(c) it contains no original research.

None found so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Yes. I've got a guide book / history of the Tribunal, which I can't find in my various piles of books (!), so can't check the article against that, but I'm pretty sure it covers the salient points. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Personally, I'm not sure the paragraph starting "The village was built in about 300 BC..." is needed here, as there is a link to the article on the village. That may be my personal preference though, so don't treat it as a GA requirement, only a comment. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; 

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

"The roof of the front room on the first floor" - could this be simply "The roof of the first floor"? (the ground floor has a ceiling, but not a roof)
But the back room of the first floor is different.— Rod talk 17:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
"The roof at the front of the building"? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Changed.— Rod talk 17:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
"The Tudor rose and the arms of Richard Beere above the doorway" - I'd suggest "entrance" rather than "doorway"
Done.— Rod talk 17:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Not a GA requirement, but could the image of the The Glastonbury Bowl be trimmed back to focus on the bowl? It is high resolution, and a tighter focus on the bowl might bring out more detail. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I took loads of photos from all available angles, flash on & off, but it is behind a perspex (alarmed) screen) so difficult but I will look again at the pics.— Rod talk 17:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
NB: if you've got Paint (or similar software), you could just trim the image to focus on the bowl - you won't lose much at that definition. I'm happy to do it it you like - it wouldn't take a moment. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Happy for you to do it, but have a look in the commons cat & see if you think any others are better?— Rod talk 17:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Done - see if it looks ok to you. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - looks fine to me.— Rod talk 17:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
If you're interested in a plan, or images showing the architectural details, Pugin did some - try https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_DIOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA55&dq=The+Tribunal,+Glastonbury&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oT_JVPanGoj1UOuLhNAO&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=The%20Tribunal%2C%20Glastonbury&f=false for some out-of-copyright examples. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure bout using the plan, there isn't really any space in the article and I'm not sure what it would add.— Rod talk 20:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Can i give an opinion? Upon quick review, and as someone who has not significally edited this article, all the external links are working ok. I checked the revision history, and there is little jargon, and there are no edit wars or content disputes. I think that anyone could go up to this article, knowing nothing about it, and learn all about The Tribunal, Glastonbury. Just one question: Are you planning to build an article about Arthur Bulleid? Because that is a red link, and if you are not planning to, you should probably remove it. That's just my opinion. Overall: I agree with Hchc2009 on this article. It should be promoted to GA status. If there are no other objections, then I think with should do it. If Hchc2009 doesn't have any objections either, I'll promote this article to GA status right away as per the Good Article criteria. Let me know if I'm mistaken. Cheers, Yoshi24517Chat Absent 04:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Yoshi, thanks for the offer, but it's more appropriate if we finish the review process before promoting an article. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Got it. Yoshi24517Chat Absent 05:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Tagging: @Hchc2009:
Thanks for your comments. When I get some time I'm planning to expand Glastonbury Lake Village (and Meare Lake Village) and as part of that create an article on Arthur Bulleid (an interesting man with plenty of RS) so I'd like to leave that as a red link at present.— Rod talk 07:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Tribunal, Glastonbury. 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/20160304055139/http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/downloads/swarfweb.pdf to http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/downloads/swarfweb.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304055139/http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/downloads/swarfweb.pdf to http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/downloads/swarfweb.pdf
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) 00:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)