Talk:Brislington House

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hospitals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals 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.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bristol Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles 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.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Somerset Low‑importance

	Somerset portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture: Historic houses Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Brislington House 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.
Review: November 27, 2013. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Brislington House appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 October 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Brislington House was one of the first purpose built lunatic asylums in England?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brislington House.

Wikipedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fox classified the patients at Brislington House..~~ ~~- would prefer a different verb to "classified" - maybe "sorted"?~~

I think the key point is that he thought the different classes (which were very narrowly defined) should be treated differently - hence the different blocks. I've changed classified to divided but I think it needs to be stronger than sorted as this was a key component of the way the place worked, and even the design of the building.— Rod ^talk 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, divided is better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WRT comprehensiveness, the segment about Perceval and the book is interesting. If there is anything more specific to Brislington House in the book it'd be good to add - any more of his reflections etc.

I've not been able to identify anything further. He was complaining/campaigning about mental health care in general in the era & used Brislington House as an example as he had been a patient there.— Rod ^talk 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ditto the one line on Frank Miles - a bit tantalisingly chopped-off - any extra info would be good.~~

I did have a bit more ie " He was cared for by his brother, the clergyman Charles Oswald Miles, but died in 1891 of what was diagnosed as 'general paralysis of the insane', often a term for neurosyphilis, exhaustion and pneumonia." but this was removed at DYK review as I could find any sources to support it.— Rod ^talk 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this one's pretty tight and on track for GA. Nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- great, well done. sorry re delay, busy day.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The info box here, is running down through four sections (I have a wide screen too); that is surely too much. Can it not be condensed n some way? Giano 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is rather long, isn't it? Hmmm - these days it is also tricky with everyone having monitors of all different shapes and sizes....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should think without a wide screen, it must be going off under the desk and heading into town. Giano 21:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know I am generally in favour of infoboxes, adding them to all articles I create if possible, as they provide quick access to information which may be what some readers are after. However taking onboard your comments and recognising that this particular one is very long (due to the different structures having separate listsings) I have used Template:Collapsed infobox section begin to shorten it. What do others think?— Rod ^talk 09:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! 100 times better in fact. Giano 18:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've been here all these years and never knew there was a handy thing to do that so I can make the infobox spring in and out like an accordion! Nice/I like it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber? Where have you been? Some of us have been trying to pioneer the collapsed info box for years. 21:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brislington House. 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:

Added archive https://archive.is/20131013121730/http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/tag/brislington-house/ to http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/tag/brislington-house/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.longfoxmanor.co.uk/history-of-long-fox/

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) 23:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]