Talk:Medieval Merchant's House/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I think the lead needs to be expanded just a little to say something of the house's architecture.

Done - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13th to 15 centuries

"The Medieval Merchant's House was built in about 1290 on 58 French Street, Southampton." Was there really a 58 French Street back in 1290?

Um, no. There was a French Street, but I doubt it was no. 58. I've adjusted the text. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The town at the time was a major port and a large provincial town ...". Saying that the town was a town seems a bit ... weird.

"At least sixty similar houses were built in Southampton during this period." Similar to what? The Medieval Merchant's House?

Changed to make clearer.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... other alterations, including the fireplace, may have been carried out at the same time." Is that the addition of a fireplace?

"Southampton's economy temporarily collapsed in the aftermath of the attacks and never fully recovered." If it never recovered then the collapse wasn't temporary.

Changed.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"During the 15th century the economy of Southampton improved due to the Italian wool trade ...". This is a confusing chronology; did Southampton's economy recover or not?

Sorted.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"58 French Street was acquired by a sequence of senior Southampton merchants ...". Really ought not to start a sentence with a number unless it's spelled out. In this case I'd suggest rewriting the sentence to avoid the problem.

... but the house escaped the late 15th-century fashion for larger houses and unlike many other properties in the neighbourhood it was not combined into a larger building ...". This is a bit muddled. How could it "escape the fashion", or anything else for that matter? And "combined into" isn't right either: you combine with, not into.

Have taken a stab at this.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Medieval Merchant's House was converted again, and had become a beer-shop by 1883, and a popular public house called the Bull's Head." That's attributed to British History Online, but I can't find any mention of it there.

You're right - it had got mangled with the another ref in the same paragraph during editing. I've decoupled and sorted them. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

"The Medieval Merchant's House today has been restored to resemble its original late 13th and 14th-century appearance as closely as possible." Haven't we just been told this in the preceding section?

Simplified. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A hallway runs alongside one side of the hall ...". Rather ugly, Can we not just "runs along one side of the hall"?

"... the hallway is a traditional feature of the period, although the fashion was eventually abandoned because of the difficulties in lighting them effectively." That needs a bit of work, as all of the plausible subjects for "them" (hallway, traditional feature, fashion) are singular, so "them" can't be correct. Perhaps something like "hallways were a feature traditional of the period ..."?

Sorted, as per your suggestion.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This is an architectural feature found in several English coastal and river medieval towns, including Southampton, Winchester and London." Clearly it's found in Southampton, as we're describing a house in Southampton.

Sorted.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also

What's the relevance of Barley Hall?

It's another medieval building of roughly similar date converted back into its original form. I'll add a note on. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, I'm working in London until Weds night. I'll start the fixes then - thanks for the work so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, that'll give me time to finish the review. Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.