Jump to content

Talk:Glastonbury Abbey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGlastonbury Abbey has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 3, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Introductory Text

[edit]

This is ridiculous! The mystical land of 'Avalon'? This isn't supposed to be a place to advertise the place. The opening text should just be a straight description of the site, not some melodramatic sprawl.

CharlieRCD (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thorn

[edit]

Is the thorn definitely monogyna? Some references on the web suggest that it's a laevigata. The difference can be found in this key:

2. Leaves deeply 5-7 lobed, leaf incision index > 50%, lobes acute; style and nutlet 1
.......................................... 1. C. MONOGYNA
2. Leaves shallowly 3-lobed, leaf incision index usually < 30%, lobes obtuse, terminal usually largest; styles and nutlets 2
......................................... 2. C. LAEVIGATA

Anyone know for sure? —Ashley Y 11:41, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Isn't Crataegus naturally more variable than our organizing system permits? Isn't the Glastonbury Thorn one of numerous hawthorn hybrids? Aren't chromosome counts as essential in categorizing species as a leaf incision index? I don't think there is a "for sure", only a most recent formulation. --18:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So is it a cross? What do the leaves and nutlets look like? —Ashley Y 02:19, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Holy Grail and King Arthur

[edit]

Why associated with the legends of the Holy Grail and King Arthur in the tenth century? 12th century seems more likely. Laurel Bush (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Glastonbury Abbey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 08:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Beginning read through.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "rich and powerful". Please mention the rich and powerful further down when you say rich below. was a monastery will suffice in the opening sentence for neutrality purposes.
  • Infobox. No Somerset pin map?
  • draionage? Is that a typo?
  • "Since at least the 12th century the Glastonbury area was frequently associated with the legend of King Arthur". From instead of since would seem better in the tense used here.
Annexation to Bath and Wells
  • No need to link King Arthur again.
History in general

Nothing after the 16th century? Just completely abandoned?

Ruins
  • Why is this section empty except for the panorama image?
Bottom sections

My feeling here is that you should unite library and Abbey Retreat House and the current Grade status and such into a section on architecture or "Architecture and ruins". I would have expected to have seen a section on its architecture, dimensions, buildings aside from the retreat house such as the kitchen and its furnishings. Does this information exist? Anyway I'd merge those section into an architecture and I'd move the rest of the current status "The ruins of Glastonbury Abbey were purchased by the Bath and Wells Diocesan Trust in 1908" to the pilgrimage mention to the end of the history section in a modern history sub section. I am prepared to pass this providing the architectural coverage is considerably improved as I feel a good article on this would have a more satisfactory coverage of the buildings and architecture itself. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments. I have (hopefully) dealt with the issues down to history in general. I am unclear about the suggestions to combine subsequent sections. The library and retreat house are really separate concepts and I don't think they would work together as a single sub head. I can do a modern history section (based on the current status section) and look for info on the dimensions etc but the retreat house doesn't really fit as it was only built around 1830 - could move that into the decline section - what do you think?— Rod talk 11:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll show you what I mean shortly. If you disagree feel free to revert. OK? All it needs now is a bit more on its architecture.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I can go with that structure, apart from the bunching of pictures it causes. I'm having problems with dimensions etc for the ruins. The site I think they are at on the Arts & Humanities Data Service ie archaeology reports is down at present but I will keep trying.— Rod talk 12:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was thinking of just some basic details such as site area, the dimensions of the main abbey buildings, brief description of design like arches and anything else. Sometimes the British History website has some details, you could try looking there? Anything you missed here? Here's more good sources on architecture here and here, This book could probably be obtained from a library if you have any intentions to develop to to FA. I can leave this open for a few days, a week or two even while you look through such sources and try to write a sound architecture section. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the information with dimensions etc that I can find. I still haven't been able to find the height of the remaining stonework. The full extent of the precincts etc may be identified in the current project and geophyics, I've mentioned in the article, but results are not published yet. Is there anything else you think it needs?— Rod talk 17:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, that'll suffice for GA. One last thing, can you add a comma in the notes and change page to p. and change e.g Bond, 1920 page 22 to Bond, 1920, p.22 ? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Think I've got all the page nos.— Rod talk 20:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Article now meets GA criteria in my opinion with an adequate balance of History and Architecture. I feel if this is ever to pass a FA it needs to be far more comprehensive with a lot more book research, but it is good enough for GA. Good work today Rod.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern history section text

[edit]

The following text from the above named section does not make sense as it is not a complete sentence: "Before he was dismissed by Bishop Armitage Robinson in 1921, because of his use of seances and psychic archaeology,[40][41]". I tried to follow the link for citation #41. It takes me to a site whose search engine indicates there is no article named 'Glastonbury Enigma' nor any article with the word 'Glastonbury' in it. I am, therefore, deleting that reference. The information is supported by citation #39 so I fixed the text to reflect that.Carmaskid (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I brought back the references and add an archived version of the Wayback Machine. Regards, mabdul 23:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pre-christian

[edit]

The introduction claims that "The origins are unclear although Glastonbury was a religious site in pre-Christian times", but the History section opens with "uggestions that Glastonbury may have been a site of religious importance in Celtic or pre-Celtic times are referred to as dubious by the historian Ronald Hutton". Which is correct? I suggest the removal of the sentence in the intro, unless we have a reference to back it up? Markb (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. This is about the Abbey, it wouldn't have originated as a pre-Christian religious edifice quite obviously. Whoever added that sentence was thinking about earlier use of the site, not the Abbey. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolution of the Monasteries

[edit]

I revised the following sentence by adding the word "who" to improve the grammar: "In September 1539, the Abbey was visited by Richard Layton, Richard Pollard and Thomas Moyle, arrived there without warning on the orders of Thomas Cromwell. Carmaskid (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cause for execution

[edit]

The article states that Richard Whiting was hanged,drawn, and quartered as a traitor, but fails to adequately explain why. It also states that the abbey was stripped of its valuables.

The book Magical Treasure Hunting in Europe and North America explains that he had hidden the wealth of the abbey, leaving little more than would be found in a regular parish church, and it was for this that he and two others were executed.

Philologick (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glastonbury Abbey. 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:

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) 08:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glastonbury Abbey. 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:

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) 08:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb of Arthur - contemporary historiographical views

[edit]

Page numbers or quotations for Rahtz, Watts, 2003, as well as Harris, 2018, would be beneficial. Moreover, if it is to be addressed, an expansion on contemporary historiographical stances on the claimed tomb of Arthur is needed; Along with this, I think there should be a more clear outlining of whether the sources supplied actually supply the claims attributed to them here. (It is easier to find the claim of invention in regards to Carley, 2001, but this is a broad collection of articles, not just one, so I think that the stances contained here should be more clearly outlined as well.) As an aside, it's somewhat strange that Baptist pastor John Dowling's "A History of Romanism" is used as a reference, being strange both in regards to this and in regards to it being used solely as a brief reference for architectural dimensions. Zusty001 (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section is misleading as it does not make clear that the great majority of experts on the period do not believe that Arthur existed. There is a place for this discussion in an article about myths concerning Arthur, but the detail is excessive in the article on Glastonbury Abbey. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glastonbury_Abbey&oldid=1195727452"