This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mills on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MillsWikipedia:WikiProject MillsTemplate:WikiProject MillsMills articles
In 1894 a steam engine was installed and after the mill was damaged in a storm in 1897 or 1898 this became the sole source of power. — I suggest rewording this to: "An steam engine was installed in 1894; after a storm damaged the mill in 1897 or 1898, the engine became its sole source of power."
The mill is now owned by The National Trust and underwent a £100,000 restoration by local craftsmen funded by the Grantscape Community Heritage Fund in 2009 and was re-opened later in the year. — This is a confusing sentence. Perhaps it could be changed to: "The mill is now owned by The National Trust. In 2009, it underwent a £100,000 restoration by local craftsmen, funded by the Grantscape Community Heritage Fund; it was was re-opened later that year."
It incorporated parts from the earlier Ham Mill which stood nearby,[1] a few hundred yards to the north east. — Does "parts" here mean designs, or physical parts from Ham Mill? Also, "nearby" isn't needed here, since "a few hundred yards" already implies that the mill was nearby.
"Nearby" removed. My reading of the sources is that bits of machinery etc were reused from the earlier mill.— Rodtalk07:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The mill has a 26 feet (7.9 m) high tower situated on an old mill mound.[3] The earth mound with a low wall was intended to keep people and livestock away from the sails. — I'm not sure about "The mill has". Isn't the tower part of the mill itself, rather than a possession of the mill? Secondly, I'd remove "high", since (in my opinion, anyway) that seems like editorializing. Finally, these two sentences could be combined like this: "...high tower situated on an old mill mound, surrounded by a low wall intended to intended to keep people and livestock away from the sails."
Simon Spearing was the miller by 1869. — Based upon my interpretation of the "Millers" section, this sentence should say: "Simon Spearing became the miller in 1869."
...who had lost an arm in an accident at a watermill in Low Ham when he was thirteen. — Maybe it's personal preference, but I think a few things could be changed: "...who lost an arm when he was thirteen due to an accident at a watermill in Low Ham."
The mill was leased to Adam Sherrin and his family from 1881 and 1902. — What is the meaning of "from" here? Should this perhaps be changed to "in"? I ask this because with its current wording, it seems to conflict with the rest of the article. If Sherrin rented the mill from 1881 forward, then how could Parker have rented the mill later that same decade?
Proving unable to compete against grain imports and the building of dockside mills at Avonmouth, Stembridge Mill was last used commercially in 1908. — "Proving" is not necessary.
Hook sold the mill and 5 acres (2.0 ha) of land to Dr. Hugh Hale Leigh Bellot for £500. — Only the symbol for pounds should be linked here; not the entire sum.
On his death in 1928,[2] it was inherited by Professor Hugh Hale Bellot. — You may disagree, but I think "On" sounds better than "Upon". Secondly, it should be clarified that "Professor Hugh Hale Bellot" was the son of "Dr. Hugh Hale Leigh Bellot". Otherwise, readers may be confused.
In 1969 Professor Bellot left the windmill, cottage and garden to the National Trust in his will. — Where was the cottage and garden? It seems somewhat awkward to suddenly mention these two things without any prior clarification.
Further repairs were carried out in 1974, these included the renewal of floors. — Change "these included" to "including". Secondly, "restoration" sounds better in this sentence than "renewal".
In 2009 the sails were replaced and the mill re-thatched and restored at a cost of a £100,000 by local craftsmen funded by the Grantscape Community Heritage Fund in 2009 and was re-opened later in the year.[9][10] Although the sails will not rotate with the wind they will moved be moved 90 degrees four times a year for maintenance.[11] Before the restoration work was undertaken surveys revealed that the mill was used as a roost for long-eared and lesser horseshoe bats. The work ensured that the bats would still have access after the restoration. — (Apologies if this is too much text to cover in one comment, but I decided that since there are many things to be fixed, I might suggest a rewording for the entire paragraph rather than for each individual sentence.) Suggest rewording this paragraph to: "In 2009 the sails were replaced and the mill re-thatched and restored by local craftsmen at a cost of a £100,000. The work was funded by the Grantscape Community Heritage Fund; the mill was re-opened later that year.[9][10] Although the sails do not rotate with the wind, they are moved 90 degrees four times per year for maintenance.[11] (Question: Why is the italicized text relevant to the sails not rotating with the wind?) Before the restoration was undertaken, surveys revealed that the mill was used as a roost by long-eared and lesser horseshoe bats. It was ensured that the bats would still have access to the mill after the restoration."
I've revised the text as suggested. In answer to your question.. My thinking was that readers might expect sails to rotate in the wind and therefore the fact that they no longer do this is significant. If it was left at that it would imply that the sails never move, which is not the case, hence the comment that they are still moved manually (for maintenance). If you have a better form of words that would be great.— Rodtalk07:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...this allows more space for the machinery as well as for storage. — "as well as" -> "and"
In the earliest tower mills the cap was turned into the wind with a long tail-pole which stretched down to the ground at the back of the mill. — Delete "to".
Later an endless chain was used which drove the cap through gearing as is used at Stembridge. — What is an "endless chain". A chain obviously must have limitations on length.
I understand that it would be a bold move to delete this, but is the "Machinery" section really necessary? I'm not very impressed by the prose, since the entire sections comprises many short sentences (in other words, it doesn't have a smooth "flow"), and Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a textbook, which is what the italicized terms make it look like. If it can't be deleted completely, perhaps the more important portions could be merged into the "Architecture" section?
The "Millers" section needs quite a few fixes, all of which are rather simple. First, why do some millers have a start date, but no end date? If no end date is available, perhaps you should place a "?" there. Second, on "F G Harding", place a period after "F" and "G"; there is also no date listed for him, so maybe you should place "(unknown)", or something similar, after his name if no date is available. Finally, who is "Hill"?
It is winded by a wheel and chain. — I'm not exactly sure what this means. In any case, "winded" is not the proper terminology, since it appears to mean something completely different than intended here. (Just Google its definition.)
"Winded" is most certainly the correct terminology. To wind a mill (pronounced as in the stuff that blows) means to turn it so that the sails face into the wind, enabling it to work. How a mill is winded refers to the method of achieving this. Tailpole, tailpole and winch, wheel & chain and fantail are the commonest methods. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No other machinery remains, the wallower, upright shaft and great spur wheel having been removed after the mill ceased to work by wind. — Reword to: "No other machinery remains, since the wallower, upright shaft and great spur wheel were removed after the mill ceased to operate by wind."
It has two pairs of 4 feet 0 inches (1.22 m) diameter millstones. — "feet" -> "foot"; delete "0 inches". To ensure accuracy, I'd also use the {{convert}} template.
...with the mixed pair later being driven underdrift by the steam engine. A wire machine was also driven by the steam engine. — These two sentences can be merged: "...with the mixed pair later being driven underdrift by the steam engine, which also drove a wire machine."
Finally, there are a few inconsistencies between the body and the lede. For instance, the body does not mention that the steam engine was installed in 1894, but the lede does. Also, the lede states that commercial use ended in 1910, while the body says 1908.
@Biblioworm:, Rodw has asked me to comment. I would be against the removal of the Machinery section. Many mill articles across Wikipedia have such a section, including GAs such as Thelnetham Windmill. The named items in italics have an entry in the mill machinery article. It is arranged in such a way so that those who are not familiar with windmills and terminology linked thereto know to refer to the linked article. Jargon is unavoidable here, so needs to be explained somehow. Better this way than having notes on every individual windmill article. Mjroots (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2015
@Mjroots: Very well. However, would you be opposed to merging the two sections, as I have suggested? Also, what is your opinion concerning the improvements I have proposed for the "Millers" section? --Biblioworm15:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be opposed to the merge. The history of the mill as a building and its technical aspects as a machine are separate things. The millers section is in chronological order. I've made a small tweak to address issues mentioned above. Mjroots (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: I suggested merging the Machinery section with the Architecture section, after which the merged section could be renamed to "Description", as seen in the article you gave as an example. I did not suggest merging it with the History section. --Biblioworm16:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. In the light of this I have merged machinery and architecture. Could you check that the machinery description etc still makes sense.— Rodtalk15:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
