Talk:Vale Royal Abbey/Archive 1

Assessment Report

The article should make use of sections.
Images need to be added.
References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

Peter I. Vardy 16:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Details of foundation and other historical information taken, with permission, from "It's all Over", 2006 by J. Brian Curzon. IantheLibrarian 22:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone got any thoughts about whether it is worth separating out the house (16th century onwards) into a separate article? Pixie2000 14:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be left together as one article because it's partially the same building (important parts of the abbey included in the post supression mansion) and the monastic and post monastic history of the site are inextricably linked, also wiki doesn't do this for other former English monasteries with mansions on the site. I've done a bit of work on the article but the whole things needs a serious rewrite to be perhaps a little like the articles on Netley Abbey or Cleeve Abbey, a thing I might do at some point. The details on the post supression history as it stands are sketchy and in need of major improvement but it's unfortunately something my sources don't cover. It sounds like you are interested in Vale Royal and it would be great if you wanted to do something about this aspect. Soph 10:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right - I will update when I have the time and done the research! Thanks for your feedback and input Pixie2000 18:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is some errors on here can anyone fix them? Can Anyone fix the ref Errors ?

I've done many of them, especially the in-line references. The external links, however, (renamed as "other sources" for the moment) should really be click-on links to those external websites mentioned. Hogyn Lleol ★ ^(chat) 20:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a few more. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I don't really know what I'm looking for, but would any of these images be useful additions? Geograph images are released under a Wikipedia-compatible Creative Commons license. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vale Royal Abbey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 09:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was an interesting read. Very well written. Some minor comments below. AIRcorn (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The Darnhall site itself was, however, soon found to be unsuitable for the huge buildings planned I like the writing style as it is engaging, but I am not sure this "however" is necessary or encyclopedic.

Agree, removed.

In the map what does the shaded area represent?

I've added Cheshire, in red, shown within England—is that what you meant?

However, wool exports were the abbey's main source of income. In 1283, Abbot Chaumpeneys acknowledged receipt of 53s 6d 8p as an advance on the abbey's eventual delivery of twelve sacks of collecta. Not keen on the external wikilink, even if it is to wikitonary. I know this is allowed, but I don't feel the definition at that page adds much to the article. Would also be interesting to know what 53s 6d 8p is in todays terms.

I've added a footnote explaining the process for the Abbey's wool sales—fn#4.

These transactions were paid for before the merchant sold on on the proviso that it was put to the "common profit of his house." Not sure who the he in the quote is referring to.

Tweaked the sentence.

This meant not only that they lost all the corn... "not only that they" could probably be written better

How about As a result, the monks both lost all the corn they had stored in them when it happened and also had to purchase sufficient to live on?

A {{when}} tag needs to be resolved

Added 1509.

The quote boxes don't have any context. Who said this and why?

Good point; added attribution.

("then novel in England") Why is this in quote marks and brackets?

Absolutely pointless :) absorbed into text body: ...similar—and modern—design of Toledo Cathedral

Edith (Edith Pretty) Why is Edith Pretty in brackets

Ah, that's from the previous main author: have linked and removed brackets, etc.

It is a Grade II* listed building What does the asterix mean?

It's a grade of listing :) sorry, I don't know much about it myself, but it links to it's page and is sourced.

An access date needs resolving in the bibliography

Added, and formatted the refs generally while I was there.

Likelihood of copyvios low[1]
One dead link to fix [2]

Fixed.

Images seem fine
Assuming good faith on the references as I don't have access to the books
I feel like the lead is a little breif considering the size of the article. Everything seems to be covered so not a failing condition, but it would be nice to expand on the finances, relationships with neighbours, the circumstances of the dissolution etc.

@Serial Number 54129: In case this has been missed. AIRcorn (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, Aircorn, I've been "AFK" for a couple of weeks :) I'll get to it soon though. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 13:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have a bit on with my own GA at the moment. Ping me back here when you are ready for me to have a second look. BTW an ip was making changes in line with this review. I assumed it was you. Either way, some of my point above may have already been addressed. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: Hope all is well with you. Just FYI, but I have finished dealing with your (excellent) suggestions. I'm going to expand the lead also as it is slightly brief, I agree. You're correct, the IP was me—I was at the hospital at the time, and bizarrely, it wouldn't let me log in for love nor money, but the internet was otherwise fine. Have a good weekend! ——SerialNumber54129 19:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had a pretty good weekend thanks. Had to work (my boss is a prick), but on the plus side I thrashed my daughter at mini put. Hope you are feeling better and the hospital visit wasn't too serious. The changes look good. This was a really well written article and as the lead is adequate I am happy to pass it to Good standard. Congratulations. AIRcorn (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]