Talk:Coleridge Cottage

Coleridge Cottage 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.

Coleridge Cottage is part of the National Trust properties in Somerset series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 9, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
December 6, 2015	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	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
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
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
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
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).

Museums Low‑importance

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

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 08:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one ties in quite nicely with the Unitarian Chapel that I recently created an article for, where Coleridge preached, apparently walking into Taunton from this cottage. Review to follow. Harrias ^talk 08:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images

All add value to the article and fit well within the article layout.
I'm a little unsure about the copyright tag on File:Cottage Moore.jpg: with an unknown photographer in 1890, it is possible that 70 years wouldn't be long enough. For example, if they were 20 when they took the photo, and lived to be 80, it would be less than 70 years since their death. Perhaps the {{PD-UK-unknown}} tag would be more appropriate?

I've changed the tag as suggested.— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I'm not keen on the single sentence first paragraph: would it be possibly to add a bit more into this to balance the two paragraphs slightly better?

I've moved one sentance about the building from the 2nd to 1st paras— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1797 the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge rented the cottage and while he lived there wrote many of his better known works, and was visited by William Wordsworth and other early members of the Romantic movement." The two occurences of "and" in this sentence make it a little clunky, it might be better split into two sentences?

Split into three sentences.— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"..and eventually brought it.." This should be "bought" not "brought".

Changed.— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History

I tend to view the lead as being independent of the body of the article, and so personally, I find the first sentence of the History section beginning "It was constructed.." as a bit odd. I would prefer it to start something like: "The cottage was constructed.." But as far as I'm aware this is just a personal preference, and not reflected in the MOS. Further into that sentence, is it missing "as" between century and two?

Changed.— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"One containing a parlour.." I think "contained" would be more suitable.

Changed.— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"While writing Kubla Khan; or, A Vision in a Dream: A Fragment, was said to have been interrupted by the arrival of a "Person from Porlock"." I think more explanation is needed in the article about this if it is to be included. Following the link to Person from Porlock helped me to understand it, but the article should be able to standalone to a greater extent.

Added a bit of explanation - is this enough?— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, although it appears to be missing a word after "Fragment"

In the lead it mentions that Coleridge rented the flat, but this isn't made clear in the History section.

Changed.— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More an exclamation than a review point, but "..the threat that it could be removed to America." They were going to move a whole cottage to America?!

I've seen one document which suggested this was considered a possibility (think London Bridge (Lake Havasu City)).— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"..had gained public support including from the archbichops.." Rather than "from the", "that of" might work better?

Changed as suggested.— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The David S. Miall source has lots of figures of individual amounts raised, I guess there is no source that gives the total amount they paid for the cottage in 1908?

I've not been able to find total sums.— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Trust ownership

Consider linking Lord Coleridge to William Coleridge, 5th Baron Coleridge, and possibly add a footnote to explain his relationship to Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

Link adfded - I've just said decendent as it is a pretty distant relationship.— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The oldest parts of the cottage were now presented.." – "were now" seems an odd construction: possibly change to either just "were", or "are now".

Done.— Rod ^talk

Linked inglenook.

Done

"The garden too was opened to visitors for the first time.." Remove "too", which is redundant.

Done.— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"..well is now operational.." Again, remove "now" which is redundant to "once more".

Done

General

Would it be worth adding anything extra from the listed building entry on the architecture of the buildings at all?

There is a bit about the windows but unclear when these changed (possibly 1890s) so I don't think there is a great deal more to add - the key interest is the literary association rather than any architectural merit.— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The NHLE entry and

Ref #10 needs an access date. Harrias ^talk 10:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date added but my understanding as this is a journal publication with volume & part numbers & will not change this is not needed (however I suppose the web page copying it may do).— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I wasn't aware of that. Surely following that logic, newspaper articles accessed online (ie through BNA) shouldn't need access dates either? Harrias ^talk 19:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all comments.— Rod ^talk 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on tidying the article up, it's looking much better now. Martinevans123 (talk · contribs) added a paragraph in the History section about references to the cottage which has two issues; firstly, I'm not keen on the single sentence paragraph, and secondly, the format used for the poem titles differs from that in the previous paragraph (in fact looking at it, Kubla Khan is in a different format to the previous titles too,) and includes a hyphen that should be an endash. Otherwise, I think we're just about there. Harrias ^talk 19:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very sorry for just throwing that in, in the midst of your GA Review. (Although I generally have even less respect for GA than I do for me own editing skills ... which is not high, I can assure you). Sorry also for any format and style sins. I just thought this material was kind of essential in any article about the cottage. I'm sure a more appropriate source could be found than that English Heritage listing. I only really came here to try and establish a date for the wall plaque, which I think should be in the caption and/or in the text. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No criticism of your adding stuff in Martinevans123, that is the point of Wikipedia! Harrias ^talk 19:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to italicise the poem titles consistently, but can't pick up the hyphen v endash error (I've never understood this pedantry of the type of line so I've not bothered to learn the difference - or even better find a tool to do it for me). I will look for a date for the wall plaque.— Rod ^talk 19:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rod! I feel so much better now. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, other than my rather nit-picky comments, this is another solid piece of work, and I'm happy to pass it as a GA! Harrias ^talk 22:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]