Jump to content

Talk:Gisborough Priory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGisborough Priory 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
June 28, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 4, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Gisborough Priory (ruins pictured) was one of the last monastic houses in England to fall victim to the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1540?

Black Monk ghost story

[edit]

I've provided some references per this request. I am not, of course, arguing that the story is true: merely that the story does exist! I think this is interesting, and part of the story of the Priory. It is certainly well-known locally and, as you see, is verifiable. Like any of these stories it's a bit of a mess which is why there are different citations for the tunnel and the raven and whether or not the Black Monk is associated with it/them/the price of fish/whatever. I certainly don't see enough evidence to treat the raven/tunnel as a separate tale so I think it's best, at present anyway, just mentioned here alongside the monk. I have only used text that can be directly supported by the works I have cited. This means the amusing PC bit about referring to him as "Black-Cowled" to avoid confusion (!) has, sadly, had to go. If a reference can be found for this practice and the reason then fine, but I can't at present find one. I have, however, linked to Religious habit in an explanatory phrase just in case anyone really was going to be that confused. I hope you find this a useful addition to the article. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I moved him (it?) down the page a bit as I felt the topic was given undue prominence when mentioned right up in the lead. Actually, looking at it the whole article is a bit unbalanced and short but hey - this is Wikipedia, we can improve it! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, this is an article about a priory, not just a priory, but one, when closed down, had an effect on the history of England in the establishment of the alum industry which was necessary for success in the wool trade ... in which England reigned supreme. The priory, as part of a network of Augustinian priories - not just an English network, but a European network, must have had a history, to do with its standing in the community, how local towns and villages interacted or relied on it, and so on. It had lands over quite a large area, for example, in Ormesby and the Eston area. There must be more to the life of the priory than has been written. But what do we get as a lead item? "It's got a ghost", or not even that, but, "It's got a ghost story".Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 11:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bitter! Hope I haven't upset you. My comments aren't addressed to you alone, but to all of the editing community - including myself. When a conversations take place in streams of text, it's often difficult to work out whether something has been said sarcastically, or just in a light-hearted manner. I think I was just as flummoxed as you with this article; I'm also at a loss as to how to bring it forward. There is plenty about the Augustinian priories of the time, in general, but nothing in particular about daily life in Guisborough, in and around the priory. My discomfort with the ghost story being so prominent, is one of maintaining a balanced article. Best wishes! Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 19:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry - I got my knickers in a twist there. I agree it's hardly the most important item, but I did at least (a) source it and (b) shift it down the page ... now we need to balance it with more good stuff like your alum additions! Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for further research

[edit]
  • [1] - 20th century excavations
  • [2] - effigies
  • [3] - 1985 excavation
  • [4] - more info on archaeology

Image

[edit]

I thought the image used for DYK and formerly in the article is better than that currently used. It does not blow up well but at article size it's fine, and it gives more generous coverage to the east end, whereas the current one has rather a lot of low wall remains in the foreground. I also like the moody weather in the old pic - not everything has to be shot on sunshine surely, in the UK? - but maybe that's just me. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly changed it ... what do you think? DBaK (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. The moody weather is rather more typical of Guisborough anyway! Prioryman (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Yes, true. Thanks for that. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Monk

[edit]

Is there no longer room in this article for the Black Monk? Please note that I am not arguing that he exists; merely that the well-known local story does, and is citeable. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, I meant to add that info but forgot. Prioryman (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am delighted to see that he's back. I guess he must have shown up while my back was turned.[1] I'm glad I didn't buy those bl**dy books to no effect ... :) Thanks! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

[edit]

Hi, just to let you know there are several links in the article needing a dab. See list. Keith D (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Readers are told that the priory took its "idiosyncratically spelled" name from the Hall. The priory pre-existed the house, did it not?--Wetman (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did, but it was called St Mary's Priory before its dissolution. The modern name appears to have been attached to it after the Chaloners incorporated the ruin into the grounds of Gisborough Hall. The spelling of the town's name changed in the 18th century but the Chaloners stuck with the original spelling, hence the mismatch. Prioryman (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sabrebd (talk · contribs) 12:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin the review in the next few days. At first glance there does not seem to be any obvious problems. A couple of thoughts: there are some links that need disambiguation and quite a lot of redlinks (it is fine to have these, but it might be a good idea to consider if they will all eventually get articles - in which case they are fine).--SabreBD (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been filling in the redlinks. Unfortunately I've not been able to resolve the disambiguation for Barnham because the original source doesn't say which of the several Barnhams it is. Prioryman (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be working through the criteria below one by one.

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

  • Consistency over century. Most are in the abbreviated form (e.g. 13th century), but on a couple of occasions the long form is used. It doesn't matter which, but they need to be consistent.
Lead
  • "catastrophic". Unnecessary here at it is obviously catastrophic and may be seen as hyperbole. (It probably necessary when it turns up in the main text).
Establishment
  • There seem to be a few commas missing and the word order is a little odd in places. Eg. "The region was, however, in a severely economically depressed economic state[,] caused by the devastating Harrying of the North carried out by William following the Conquest."
  • Sometimes sentences just need to be in a more straightforward order. Eg. "Robert de Brus "founded a certain Monastery of a religious order in Gysburne [sic], to the honour of God, and the holy Virgin Mary", as the founding charter of the Priory puts it.", would be better as "The founding charter states that Robert de Brus "founded a certain Monastery of a religious order in Gysburne [sic], to the honour of God, and the holy Virgin Mary".
  • Logical punctuation is used most of the time, but sometimes full stops at the end of sentences appear inside quotes.
  • "sac and soc, thol and theam", given that there is no article to which a reader can link you may need to explain this.
  • "advowsons". Link or explain for casual readers.
Dissolution
  • "New government". It is the same king. Another term needed here to describe a change in direction in a monarchy.
Older buildings
  • Link Saxon and potsherds.
  • "in fact" No need for this, it just makes the sentence more complex.
  • Henry I. Link him, first time we have come across this Henry.
  • "no trace left of whatever might once have stood there or what it might have been used for", should this be "or indication of what it might have been used for"?
General point
  • There is quite a bit of redundancy in the prose. Words like “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all” can often be disposed of. It would be worth doing a word search for these and removing them where the sentence still makes sense.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

  • The lead/into mentions some things about place, but they probably need to be repeated at the beginning of the History section as readers may skip to that section and what is in the lead should pretty much always be in the main body.
  • Strictly speaking WP:LEAD#length suggests that an article of this length should have three or four paragraphs in the lead. Really not going to push that one at GA as this seems a perfectly adequate summary of the article and these are just suggestions, but it will probably come up at FA if the article is put forward, so it is something to think about.
  • It would be good to remove the "redundancy" of the article title where it turns up in subheadings. "Other properties owned by Gisborough Priory" could perhaps be "Other properties of the priory" or "other properties"; "Priors of Gisborough Priory" could just be "Priors".
  • Checked for words to watch - none found.
  • No fiction and problems with list incorporation that I can see. The list of priors looks fine, except that some have dates of the whole office and some just date of taking office. I presume that is because this is all the information we have. Perhaps the rubric at the top should just mention that some have dates of office where known?

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

This is fine. Very slight point over consistency that the templated online sources end with a full stop, but the Harvard style references do not. It is probably easiest to put full stops at the end of all.
I think the reason for that is that the Harvard style references take up one sentence while the online sources take up two or more; the convention seems to be that one-sentence references don't get a full stop, while multiple sentences need to be separated by full stops. Prioryman (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

No problems here: it is very well sourced.

(c) it contains no original research.

Cannot see anything that looks like OR.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Yes

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Yes

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Yes

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Yes

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

Yes. A good balance.

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Yes

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes. They will need alt text for an FA review.
OK, I'll work on that in due course - thanks for flagging that up. Prioryman (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gisborough Priory. 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) 09:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gisborough Priory. 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) 14:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gisborough_Priory&oldid=1207723676"