Talk:The Exchange, Bristol/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

There are a couple of problems with the external links. One is dead and another points to a blacklisted url.[1]

The lead needs to be expanded to adequately summarise the article.

I'm a bit concerned about the reliability of some of the sources, such as everything2.com, ukattraction.com, aboutbristol.co.uk, and worldwidewords.org. I'm also surprised to see that there isn't a single book reference listed.

There is surprisingly little architectural detail given on the building, not even its architectural style(s). I'm unconvinced that this article is really adequately covering its subject.

From Clock: "Before the arrival of the railways there was no practical way of communicating information about time over a distance. When the telegraph made such communication possible, it became necessary for people living in one area to agree that they would not keep their own local time, but would all keep a time based on the local standard meridian." This is a non-sequitor. The telegraph didn't make it necessary to standardise time, it was the scheduling of railway services.

--Malleus Fatuorum 12:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Although I started this article it is more than 2 years since I last edited it and it achieved GA status therefore I would agree a review was due. I have attempted to expand the lede and replaced the offending references and added some more - although some which may not meet WP:RS are still included. I have added a paragraph about the architectural features. I'm not sure about the comment related to the clock and Bristol Time - what is given is a paraphrase of the source cited. Do you ave other sources emphasising railways over telegraph as the driver for the need for standardisation? Would you take another look and suggest those areas you still feel need further work?— Rod ^talk 14:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The railway time article may help. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, however the article you point to does not have a reference to support it and includes "Similarly, Bristol did not solely recognise railway time until September 1852. It was not for a further eight years and the arrival of the electric telegraph that railway time was the sole time recognised in these towns as well as some others in the West Country..". I will add in railway time but I don't see definitive evidence of which is the most significant in Bristol.

A google seach for "london time" +gwr throws up a lot of sources. This one, for instance, explicitly mention the clock on The Exchange: "The clock was first installed in 1822 and later given two minute-hands, which can still be seen. One hand shows the old Bristol time, which, with the coming of Brunel’s railway and the need to synchronise train schedules, was adjusted to London time, indicated by other hand, just over ten minutes ahead." Here's an 1840s GWR timetable, which explicitly mentions London time and that Bristol time is 11 minutes different. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I've added a bit more from 1st source mentioned.— Rod ^talk 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good now, thanks for your prompt attention to this Rod. I just have one issue left, still to do with the clock I'm afraid. The text says: "Bristol did not solely recognise railway time until September 1852. It was not for a further eight years and the arrival of the electric telegraph that railway time was the sole time recognised in the city." I'm not following this; was railway time solely recognised in Bristol in 1852, or eight years later in 1860? The sources cited in support of this section don't seem to mention this either. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was stolen from the Great Britain section of the Railway time article you pointed out & is uncited/unclear there - could be safely removed in my opinion.— Rod ^talk 20:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the original text is that Bristol adopted London time in 1852, and it was adopted everywhere else in the region by 1860, but the text is slightly confusing, I agree. There seems to be no doubt that though Bristol adopted railway time in 1852, and I've found a decent enough reference for that. I think we can quite easily drop the "eight years later" bit, as it's not relevant to Bristol. I'll make that small change, add the citation for 1852, and then we can close this review. Thanks for all your help. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm closing this review now. Just one final point; the clock only shows Greenwich Mean Time during the winter, it shows British Summer Time for the rest of the year, but we'll let that pass. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 3 July 2009 (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.