2104:"this evolved from the Palladian revival style which became popular in the early 18th century. Georgian architecture is the name given in most English-speaking countries to the set of architectural styles current between 1720 and 1840. It is eponymous for the first four British monarchs of the House of Hanover—George I of Great Britain, George II of Great Britain, George III of the United Kingdom, and George IV of the United Kingdom—who reigned in continuous succession from August 1714 to June 1830. The styles that resulted fall within several categories. In the mainstream of Georgian style were both Palladian architecture— and its whimsical alternatives, Gothic and Chinoiserie, which were the English-speaking world's equivalent of European Rococo. It is characterized by its proportion and balance; simple mathematical ratios were used to determine the height of a window in relation to its width or the shape of a room as a double cube. "Regular" was a term of approval, implying symmetry and adherence to classical rules: the lack of symmetry, where Georgian additions were added to earlier structures, was deeply felt as a flaw. Regularity of housefronts along a street was a desirable feature of Georgian town planning. Georgian designs usually lay within the Classical orders of architecture and employed a decorative vocabulary derived from ancient Rome or Greece."
1383:
street level. The Roman Baths were built around hot springs, the only ones naturally occurring in the United
Kingdom." We leave the many sites and go straight to one site - the Baths. The first sentence looks like the start of an overview of the Roman sites in Bath - but never gets there. While the second sentence belongs to a paragraph about the Baths. The final paragraph of the section is a single sentence: "The city was given defensive walls, probably in the 3rd century." But we are told no more about the walls. It would be helpful to explain that they no longer exist, and some sense of their development - that there was a stone Roman wall along with a wooden Saxon wall. And now we are creeping into broad coverage....
1534:
construction, but have been modified and added to over the years. If using the current time-line structure of the article, then details of the development of the baths would be scattered around the article (currently the later development of the baths are not covered - though the Kings Bath and the Pump Room, at least, need something other than a link to another page) rather than a cohesive section dealing with the development of that particular building. I think it would be easier for all involved if the structure was geared around the buildings themselves than the timeline of Bath as a whole.
1763:
side of the River Avon such as
Widcombe were originally separate settlements but became subsumed into the city.", "The opening of the Great Western Railway in 1841 removed much of the canal's traffic, and in 1852 the railway company took over its running.", "The population of the city had reached 40,020 by the time of the 1801 census, making it one of the largest cities in Britain, which was expanding up the surrounding hills." General history comments which focus on the buildings are, of course, very acceptable, and an excellent example of this is
581:
560:
387:
366:
476:
455:
190:
1072:
1172:
1156:
1128:
1107:
1051:
1035:
1023:
996:
980:
335:
1283:- would benefit from some trimming. Images are very useful to an architecture topic, and - though I am not fond of them - it may be appropriate to have a gallery in this article - perhaps moving some of the existing images from within the body to give the article a less cluttered appearance. I also note there is only one image which is not modern - is it possible to find some other engravings or paintings to show the development of the city?
774:
276:
1192:
696:
486:
1084:
591:
1928:
put a semi-colon before it and a comma after it and ensure that the sentence contains a valid contrast. Another example is this sentence: "Beside the baths, a temple dedicated to
Minerva was constructed on a podium above a surrounding courtyard, in classical style with four large, fluted Corinthian columns." What's in classical style? The temple? The courtyard? All of it? The reader is left wondering.
686:
665:
1425:
various angles. I am wondering about the structure of the article - it appears more geared up as a history of the city rather than as a discussion of the buildings. Indeed, there could be a section which gives an overview of the architectural history of the city, and then sections devoted to the major buildings, or areas, or types of building, and/or major periods. Possibly.
1480:. I think the main omission within the article -as it stands- is that it does not address urban form at all (i.e. the relationship between buildings, context). Actually Bath is remarkable exacly for the coherency, even homogenity of its built form and received World Heritage status (the whole city!) exactly for that reason. As UNESCO puts it, for the
2063:
both getting at the same thing - that at the moment the article is weighed too much toward the general history of Bath. My feeling is that a restructure would be helpful as it would assist in creating the appropriate focus - however, if the article as it stands were honed with a view to a focus on the buildings then that would serve the same purpose.
1998:
thing. If you feel the errors are quite small (spelling, grammar, etc), then you may make the corrections directly yourself. There is an educational value in making some comment on minor flaws that are repeated in an article - but if there is but one use, it's often quicker and easier to simply make the correction.
1918:
to a time frame) but from pre-Roman Celtic to postmodernism, which would be equivalent and contrasting architectural terms. The third sentence is also awkward and tortured and seems to be missing a verb, unless the article is claiming that the buildings themselves were sentient and actively "formed" the streets.
2062:
I haven't had the time to do the mock up structure as I indicated above, and I came here this morning intending to do that; however, I am persuaded by Elekhh's comment to rethink that strategy. It may well be that what is needed is not so much a change of structure as a change of focus. I feel we are
1927:
There are numerous basic spelling and grammatical errors in the body of the article. For example, "however" is misused in the very first sentence of the body. The word doesn't mean "but"; it means "on the other hand". It's a common mistake in UK English but it's still a mistake. Replace with "but" or
1533:
I wouldn't fail an article because of the way the information is structured - unless the structure was confusing or inhibited reader's understanding. My comments on the structure are just to consider if the structure is the most helpful both for reader and editor. The Roman Baths are not just a Roman
1997:
You have presented your views clearly and neutrally. When bringing attention to possible flaws in an article one always wonders about being "harsh"; however, as long as comments are focused on the article and not on the editors, then there should be no reason to be concerned. You have done the right
1424:
Comment. When I first looked at this this I though - oooh, that looks good, this should be easy! But there are a few niggles. I think there's lots of potential here - but I also feel it needs a period of work. It's a big and important topic, and could probably do with a few people looking at it from
1917:
The lede as currently written is awkwardly written and difficult to parse. It's too long and there are too many commas, most of which are grammatically incorrect. The description of the breadth of Bath architecture should not be from the Roman Baths to the present day (you're contrasting a building
1873:
as a guide. However, the focus on architecture is still not there. The article is very much packed with historical data, and thus reads still a bit like a history, rather than an architectural history. Several sections start with a long intro on historical events, rather than characteristics of the
1506:
As regards the Roman buildings. The Roman temple no longer exists as a complete piece, though fragments of it have been found around Bath as parts of other buildings, and this has allowed archeologists to reconstruct a history of the structure. That bare information would be in itself useful within
2100:
I'm just going through the article now to check everything is fine. It's a good article. I've been slightly adjusting the focus here and there to point more toward the building and architecture rather than the general history - and I feel a little more work could be done in this direction, but not
1649:
I like the way the article has developed. I like the additional coverage of the Roman buildings and the expansion of the Lead. Give me a moment to reflect on the focus and broad coverage aspects - which is now the only stumbling block. I am still of the opinion that it would be more helpful to the
1762:
I feel the tourism section is not relevant and should be dropped. Also that the focus of the article should always be on the buildings rather than wandering into general history. These statements could be questioned: (not exhaustive, just examples, and just for consideration:) "Areas on the south
1382:
Prose. There's a lot of information here, but it's not always presented clearly. There are single sentence paragraphs, and some paragraphs seem incomplete: "There are many Roman archaeological sites throughout the central area of the city, most of them about 15 feet (4.6 m) below the present city
1305:
I was skimming through for a quick check on OR, feeling that would be an easy pass, given the topic, when I met this statement: "Many of the prominent architects of the day were employed in the development of the city." which looked like it should have a source, and only saw one at the end of the
888:
Yeah, i like the ha-ha pic which you kindly pointed me to. Seems like a significant architectural term to me, to illustrate in an article about Bath's architecture. Mighten't there be room? We be'st limited only be electrons, et il y en a plutot, n'est-ce pas? Mercie pour partager le photo de
1981:
Thank you for your comments - on GA nominations, as elsewhere, any comments which help to improve the article will be welcome. I have revised the lead slightly to take account of your comments & have asked another editor, who is mush more expert on grammar than I am to comment on "current"
1237:
suggests that short captions (such as "The Forum") might be seen as trivial. I'd like to see the longer captions trimmed if possible, and the shorter ones expanded. In addition, the pacing of the images has resulted in some sandwiching, and displacing of following sections, so to comply with
2107:
This looks like it was inserted to give some background information on
Georgian architecture. Some explanation on Georgian architecture is welcome - this however is rather long and being uncited is holding up the GA process. I will remove it, and some thought can be given later as to how to
1854:
They obviously don't have the same length of history & I note that, with the exception of New York, they retain some aspects of chronology, and I still can't see any real advantage. If you want to draft something and can get consensus for it then obviously I will accept that.—
1516:
1519:. I do feel that more can be written as there is enough information available, and a curious reader would wish to know more - especially as the World Heritage listing says: "The Roman remains ... are amongst the most famous and important Roman remains north of the Alps."
1868:
I think the article evolved amazingly in the last five days and is certainly on the right track. In terms of focus, I don't think the structure is the problem: sections by historic period and architectural style are perfectly appropriate in my opinion. I would suggest
1650:
reader if the focus were on the buildings rather than the time-line. But I don't want speculation regarding the way the article is arranged to hinder a GA review if the speculation is not appropriate. It would be helpful if other people gave their view on this issue.
1636:
I think the historical approach enables description of the development of the architecture of the city and focusing on specific buildings would duplicate the specific articles, therefore I'm now wondering what else is needed and would appreciate other comments?—
1559:
I have made some further attempts to improve the article based on your comments and those elsewhere including expanding the lead and placing more emphasis on urban form. I am having trouble finding older images - there are lots at sites such as
1484:. Ultimately buildings in Bath are less remarkable individually, than as an ensemble. The article would definitively need an intro in this regard, or an expansion of its scope to include urban form (i.e. Architecture and Urban Form of Bath).
1703:
I was thinking of this article in bed last night (as you do!) and I'm still concerned about the structure. I'd like some more discussion about it. I was thinking of other ways of organising the material, and had something like this in mind:
1461:
The structure tries to provide an overview of each period (with the
Georgian being far the most significant/important in Bath) and the detail on specific buildings in the articles on those buildings. I followed the general structure of
811:
153:
1507:
the article, along with another sentence or two on the building itself and its history. Currently the article has this: "Beside it a temple was constructed at the same time." Which is more of a tease than solid information.
1512:
1499:
I'm always happy to give articles plenty of time to develop - and to help out if needed. I tend to only close as a fail if there is no progress. My desire is that this article becomes GA - which I feel sure it will.
1347:
Another challengable claim that needs a source: "The Circus is seen as the pinnacle of Wood's work." The article needs careful reading to pick up other such statements and ensure they are sourced appropriately.
1963:"a common mistake in UK English" - if language usage is common it is no longer a mistake. That's the nature of development. However, I agree the "however" sentence was awkward, and I have amended it.
1581:
Images are now acceptable for GA, so the search for older images can be left for another time. I'll certainly chip in with some edits to build up information, and make further comments as appropriate.
2028:
The stone is golden or honey-coloured. I haven't checked to see if there is a cite within the article for that as I didn't think that would be challenged - but there would be plenty of sources -
1811:
I would be interested to see how your proposal works, but I'm still not convinced it is the best treatment - do you have any examples of other cities where this approach is used successfully?—
805:
147:
2450:
2280:
1568:
however they do not have licences which would allow us to use them. I hope that some of your concerns have been met but would welcome further edits and comments to improve the article.—
879:
as it is relevant but that article doesn't deal with the buildings & architecture in the same depth. If there is another article about it please let me know as I'm not aware of it.—
1614:
has made some comments about referencing, short paragraphs, who lived where etc which I've acted on & made some 19th century engravings available which I've started to incorporate.
1229:
Images are appropriately tagged and have captions. The length and detail of the captions varies - at times the information is quite extensive, at others the caption is fairly terse.
2011:
I don't feel the lead is too long. The lead is essentially a mini article. It has to sum up the main points of the topic - and this is a particularly rich and important topic. See
1466:(which is an FA), but have asked at several relevant wikiprojects for others to cast an eye to see how they think it could be improved. Please allow a few days for improvements.—
852:
below the Royal
Crescent. I am not clear if this article is substantially the same or different than another article on Bath that covered the Unesco World Heritage Site listing.
2468:
2464:
2298:
2294:
2540:
1770:
While the proposal sounds a lot, I don't think it is, as most of the work has already been done. If interested I could do a quick mock up on a subpage to see how it looks.
875:
some months ago? I don't think there is room for it in this article but I'm happy to upload it if you think it should go somewhere?. The UNESCO WHS listing is included in
1310:
1267:
These are not GA criteria, but additional observations: There is a huge contrast in the quality of the images themselves. Some of them are quite stunning, while others -
44:
2082:
I have removed significant chunks of "general history" not specific to the form of the buildings (although it did give context about usage etc) - does this help?—
1824:
The articles seem to vary, with a few using the time-line approach, but more tend to use a structure similar to the one I have proposed. Here are three examples:
2396:
437:
1447:
Thanks for you comments so far I will attempt to work on the others, particularly providing citations. However I'm less sure on some of the others specifics:
647:
1783:
1674:
b) The tourism section is semi-relevant, needs expanding to show how the famous bulidings attract tourists, maybe remove vague statements about B&Bs.
2516:
2044:
1976:
2346:
2076:
1417:
1361:
1326:
297:
1641:
752:
2565:
2426:
1883:
1602:
1515:
gives a quick overview of the history of scholarly opinion on the temple (appears it was thought for a while that there were two temples). More info
1493:
1375:
1340:
532:
1892:) and added some info on general architectural trends in England to the start of Georgian & Victorian sections - the others are too disparate.—
542:
2550:
2154:
2086:
2015:. The lead could, however, be tightened up a bit more. Thanks for redrawing my attention to that, and I'll have a go at tidying it up in a minute.
1990:
1859:
1849:
1815:
1663:
1594:
1572:
1470:
1296:
1256:
427:
1874:
architecture of the period. I also agree with comments above that the
Tourism section is distracting, and better be merged into the Bath article.
1692:
1683:
1450:
Although there have been archaeological digs into roman foundations there are no other roman buildings left, so there isn't much else to describe.
907:
898:
883:
1896:
925:
826:
168:
2216:
2580:
2246:
2057:
793:
637:
135:
1482:"overall city landscape that evolved over a century in a harmonious and logical way, drawing together public and private buildings and spaces"
1910:
I've never commented on a GA talk page before, so forgive me if I'm doing this wrong or being too harsh. That said, some structural nitpicks:
2555:
1280:
1272:
872:
201:
2535:
1764:
1688:
Thanks for your comments. I have changed Late Modern to
Victorian & 20th century & added visitor numbers for some of the sites.—
1671:
a) I don't know if Late Modern is quite the right heading for 1810 onwards, by my reckoning that is hardly into the modern period at all.
949:
259:
2590:
2560:
1950:
1311:
http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/schools/historical-and-cultural-studies/irish-studies/research-projects/social-decline-and-slum-conditions.pdf
742:
79:
2236:
861:
2545:
1276:
403:
2446:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
787:
129:
2406:
1537:
I'm pleased that others have been invited to look over the article, as I think the information gathered here is quite impressive.
2575:
2386:
2376:
2121:
1527:
1150:
613:
2595:
2397:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100326154304/http://www.dlgarchitects.com/upload/pdf/czaUQvUAiFCgfGF1yvFry3ORIFNZ1gNDDp71tpXF.pdf
1550:
1438:
1220:
783:
125:
2174:
1870:
1463:
85:
1620:
made comment about Urban form, which I've tried to incorporate into the lead (along with UNESCO description for WHS status)
1388:
I feel the lead section could go into a bit more detail and pick up on some of the notable highlights of the city, such as
394:
371:
2144:
833:
175:
2585:
2101:
enough that it would hold up the GA status. However, I have just paused as I have met a long paragraph which is uncited:
718:
219:
2570:
2436:
2400:
2360:
2226:
2188:
958:
604:
565:
508:
316:
30:
24:
2416:
2351:
2368:
2196:
2530:
2427:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110722062219/http://www.romanbaths.co.uk/pdf/Heritage%20Open%20Days%2009%20FINAL.pdf
2179:
1396:(it's mentioned, but not explained). It might be helpful to pick up some points from the World Heritage listing:
207:
99:
2467:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
2297:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
799:
252:
141:
1789:
Hmmmm... I'm not sure - I think the risk of this approach could be that the contribution of key individuals eg
1508:
1045:
709:
670:
104:
20:
1941:. Is this a fault of my monitor or of the photographs, or do the images not correctly represent Bath stone? --
2217:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130621205423/http://www.uquebec.ca/musique/orgues/angleterre/batha.html#English
1904:
1833:
1252:
I have removed a couple of the weaker images and revised the captions - I hope this issue is now addressed?—
499:
460:
74:
2247:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080131165322/http%3A//www.royalcrescentbath.com/HistoryRoyalCrescent%25202.htm
2511:
2341:
1937:
The article refers to the "golden-coloured" Bath stone, but most of the stone shown in the article appears
346:
2430:
1829:
1268:
65:
2486:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
2316:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
2367:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
2195:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1802:
1307:
2220:
990:
843:
1986:
is commonly described as "Honey
Coloured" & looks yellowish to me, but I'm not a photo expert.—
2237:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080131165317/http://www.royalcrescentbath.com:80/HistoryBathatWar.htm
2095:
717:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
612:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
507:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
402:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2502:
2332:
1825:
1013:
109:
2471:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
2407:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080928081951/http://www.cityofbath.co.uk/sign/camndencrescent.html
2301:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
2250:
2487:
2317:
1794:
1626:
made lots of comments, particularly related to Roman & Saxon ages which have been expanded.
945:
913:
2387:
https://web.archive.org/web/20071109193824/http://www.widcombebenefice.org.uk/ourchurches.html
2377:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080516100013/http://www.thecityofbath.co.uk/renaissance_bath.htm
1523:
2474:
2304:
1629:
352:
290:
1503:
Image layout and captions are now within GA criteria. Thank you for responding so promptly.
2494:
2324:
2271:
1790:
189:
1239:
1230:
8:
1946:
1737:
1611:
596:
311:
55:
2410:
2240:
2453:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
2283:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
2141:
2118:
2073:
2041:
2029:
1973:
1846:
1780:
1714:
1660:
1591:
1547:
1435:
1414:
1358:
1323:
1293:
1217:
275:
70:
2493:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
2390:
2380:
2323:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
2204:
2210:
2170:
2165:
That panorama needs formatting, it is not displaying properly - if anyone knows how.
2126:
1727:
1679:
1234:
1233:
suggests that "more than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting", while
937:
894:
857:
211:
51:
2437:
https://web.archive.org/web/20091016080908/http://www.bathforum.co.uk/1/history.html
2401:
http://www.dlgarchitects.com/upload/pdf/czaUQvUAiFCgfGF1yvFry3ORIFNZ1gNDDp71tpXF.pdf
2227:
https://web.archive.org/web/20071113094712/http://www.bathmuseum.co.uk/biography.htm
2160:
1879:
1489:
1142:
921:
2417:
https://web.archive.org/web/20071012153244/http://penninewaterways.co.uk/locks.htm
819:
161:
2364:
2192:
1732:
1389:
1336:
I have removed the uncited sentance & revised the ref with the broken link.—
962:
701:
2108:
re-introduce some brief cited background information on Georgian architecture.
2012:
1942:
1889:
1722:
1393:
1097:
876:
580:
559:
491:
307:
2459:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
2420:
2289:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
2524:
2134:
2111:
2066:
2034:
1966:
1839:
1773:
1653:
1623:
1584:
1540:
1428:
1407:
1351:
1316:
1286:
1210:
1166:
399:
2440:
2230:
2166:
1675:
952:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
890:
853:
609:
868:
2460:
2290:
1888:
I have removed the tourism section (using some of the visitor numbers on
1875:
1798:
1617:
1485:
917:
386:
365:
2431:
http://www.romanbaths.co.uk/pdf/Heritage%20Open%20Days%2009%20FINAL.pdf
1983:
1756:
1404:
Broad coverage. Needs considerably more detail on the Roman buildings.
1607:
Could you give an indication of specific further work that is needed?
475:
454:
2151:
2083:
1987:
1893:
1856:
1812:
1689:
1638:
1569:
1467:
1453:
I can't find much on the 3rd century walls & nothing still exists
1372:
1337:
1253:
904:
880:
284:
1397:
1275:- are cluttered and are more distracting than helpful; and others -
714:
2221:
http://www.uquebec.ca/musique/orgues/angleterre/batha.html#English
1767:
which explains very well the impact of events on the buildings.
695:
504:
1565:
1561:
848:
Hey, if u r covering the architecture here, u should cover the
590:
2251:
http://www.royalcrescentbath.com/HistoryRoyalCrescent%202.htm
849:
2256:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
1313:
So we have a dead link, and no source to support the claim.
1165:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
2371:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
2199:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
2150:
Thank you for the comprehensive review - and your edits.—
685:
664:
1149:
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
1805:
etc etc and the role of the spa in growth could be lost.
1744:
Transport buildings (essentially the Victorian section)
2541:
Knowledge Did you know articles that are good articles
1753:
World Heritage Site (summary of when and why and what)
1711:
Historical overview (a summary of the current article)
818:
160:
2411:
http://www.cityofbath.co.uk/sign/camndencrescent.html
2241:
http://www.royalcrescentbath.com/HistoryBathatWar.htm
1765:
Buildings_and_architecture_of_Bath#Twentieth_century
713:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
691:
608:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
586:
503:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
481:
398:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
15:
2463:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
2391:
http://www.widcombebenefice.org.uk/ourchurches.html
2381:
http://www.thecityofbath.co.uk/renaissance_bath.htm
2293:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
2205:
http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/worldheritage/3Append.htm
2211:http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/worldheritage/2.3Des.htm
1032:B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
916:nowadays... and place it in a separate section...
314:, was awarded that status largely because of its
283:A fact from this article appeared on Knowledge's
2522:
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
2449:This message was posted before February 2018.
2279:This message was posted before February 2018.
1808:Are you going to put the Abbey under churches?
1456:I will attempt to expand the lead as suggested
217:If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
832:
174:
1281:File:Bath Abbey Fan Vaulting - July 2006.jpg
1273:File:BathGreenParkStationFrontMay2006WON.jpg
2421:http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/locks.htm
950:Talk:Buildings and architecture of Bath/GA1
310:, the only entire city in England to be a
2441:http://www.bathforum.co.uk/1/history.html
2359:I have just modified 7 external links on
2231:http://www.bathmuseum.co.uk/biography.htm
2187:I have just modified 6 external links on
1306:paragraph. Clicking on it, I ended up at
1277:File:Prior Park Bath Palladian Bridge.jpg
1242:, some images should be moved or removed.
2566:High-importance England-related articles
1522:Some sources on the city wall are given
2551:High-importance Historic sites articles
2523:
2581:High-importance Architecture articles
2268:to let others know (documentation at
1871:Buildings and architecture of Bristol
1464:Buildings and architecture of Bristol
1603:Clarification of further work needed
768:
707:This article is within the scope of
602:This article is within the scope of
497:This article is within the scope of
412:Knowledge:WikiProject Historic sites
392:This article is within the scope of
334:
332:
328:
2556:WikiProject Historic sites articles
912:hmm, I thought you would call this
415:Template:WikiProject Historic sites
23:for discussing improvements to the
13:
2536:Art and architecture good articles
2361:Buildings and architecture of Bath
2189:Buildings and architecture of Bath
1104:Fair representation without bias:
1083:
622:Knowledge:WikiProject Architecture
202:Art and architecture good articles
196:Buildings and architecture of Bath
25:Buildings and architecture of Bath
14:
2607:
2591:High-importance Somerset articles
2561:GA-Class England-related articles
2363:. Please take a moment to review
2191:. Please take a moment to review
2058:Focus on architecture / structure
625:Template:WikiProject Architecture
210:. If you can improve it further,
2546:GA-Class Historic sites articles
1511:gives a quick and easy summary.
1190:
1170:
1154:
1126:
1105:
1082:
1070:
1049:
1033:
1021:
994:
978:
772:
694:
684:
663:
589:
579:
558:
484:
474:
453:
385:
364:
333:
274:
188:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
2209:Corrected formatting/usage for
2203:Corrected formatting/usage for
1191:
747:This article has been rated as
642:This article has been rated as
537:This article has been rated as
432:This article has been rated as
2576:GA-Class Architecture articles
908:08:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
899:07:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
884:07:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
862:07:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
727:Knowledge:WikiProject Somerset
351:It is of interest to multiple
198:has been listed as one of the
1:
2596:WikiProject Somerset articles
2347:12:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
2175:14:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
2155:13:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
2145:11:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
2122:11:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
1834:Architecture of New York City
730:Template:WikiProject Somerset
721:and see a list of open tasks.
616:and see a list of open tasks.
517:Knowledge:WikiProject England
511:and see a list of open tasks.
406:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
2087:15:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
2077:09:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
2045:09:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
1991:09:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
1977:09:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
1951:01:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
1897:17:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
1884:11:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
1860:19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
1850:18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
1816:16:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
1784:11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
1693:21:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
1684:18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
1664:16:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
1642:10:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
1595:12:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
1573:11:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
1551:17:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
1494:10:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
1471:20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
1439:19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
1418:19:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
1376:20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
1362:19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
1341:20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
1327:18:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
1297:18:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
1257:20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
1221:18:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
1171:
1155:
1127:
1106:
1071:
1050:
1034:
1022:
995:
979:
926:10:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
867:Thanks - I presume you mean
520:Template:WikiProject England
7:
1830:Architecture of Kansas City
1371:This is from Gadd's book.—
1309:even though the url reads:
1269:File:Milsom Street Bath.jpg
304:The text of the entry was:
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
2612:
2586:GA-Class Somerset articles
2480:(last update: 5 June 2024)
2356:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
2310:(last update: 5 June 2024)
2184:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
2131:Passed as a Good Article.
1231:Knowledge:CAP#Succinctness
1020:A. References to sources:
753:project's importance scale
648:project's importance scale
543:project's importance scale
438:project's importance scale
395:WikiProject Historic sites
317:buildings and architecture
2571:WikiProject England pages
1632:has copy edited my prose.
1146:to illustrate the topic?
746:
679:
641:
574:
536:
469:
431:
380:
359:
234:
230:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
2517:16:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
605:WikiProject Architecture
523:England-related articles
2531:Knowledge good articles
2352:External links modified
2180:External links modified
1826:Architecture of Houston
1240:Knowledge:LAYOUT#Images
972:reasonably well written
418:Historic sites articles
1795:John Wood, the Younger
1668:From a quick reading -
914:landscape architecture
341:This article is rated
306:Did you know ... that
75:avoid personal attacks
1630:User:Malleus Fatuorum
1235:Knowledge:CAP#Wording
1064:broad in its coverage
628:Architecture articles
208:good article criteria
100:Neutral point of view
2461:regular verification
2291:regular verification
1791:John Wood, the Elder
1750:Theatres and museums
1719:Georgian highlights
1046:No original research
710:WikiProject Somerset
260:Good article nominee
105:No original research
2451:After February 2018
2281:After February 2018
2260:parameter below to
1982:grammatical usage.
1738:Bath Assembly Rooms
1612:User:Peter I. Vardy
1151:fair use rationales
1125:No edit wars, etc:
597:Architecture portal
500:WikiProject England
312:World Heritage Site
2505:InternetArchiveBot
2456:InternetArchiveBot
2335:InternetArchiveBot
2286:InternetArchiveBot
1715:Roman Baths (Bath)
1226:Article is stable.
1069:A. Major aspects:
1009:factually accurate
977:A. Prose quality:
347:content assessment
298:September 28, 2009
235:Article milestones
86:dispute resolution
47:
2481:
2311:
1728:The Circus (Bath)
1167:suitable captions
844:ha-ha and comment
841:
840:
767:
766:
763:
762:
759:
758:
733:Somerset articles
658:
657:
654:
653:
553:
552:
549:
548:
448:
447:
444:
443:
327:
326:
269:
268:
253:November 11, 2009
226:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
2603:
2515:
2506:
2479:
2478:
2457:
2345:
2336:
2309:
2308:
2287:
2275:
2143:
2137:
2120:
2114:
2075:
2069:
2043:
2037:
1975:
1969:
1905:General comments
1848:
1842:
1782:
1776:
1662:
1656:
1593:
1587:
1549:
1543:
1530:may be useful.
1437:
1431:
1416:
1410:
1360:
1354:
1325:
1319:
1295:
1289:
1219:
1213:
1194:
1193:
1174:
1173:
1158:
1157:
1130:
1129:
1109:
1108:
1086:
1085:
1074:
1073:
1053:
1052:
1037:
1036:
1025:
1024:
998:
997:
982:
981:
873:I told you about
837:
836:
822:
776:
775:
769:
735:
734:
731:
728:
725:
704:
699:
698:
688:
681:
680:
675:
667:
660:
659:
630:
629:
626:
623:
620:
599:
594:
593:
583:
576:
575:
570:
562:
555:
554:
525:
524:
521:
518:
515:
494:
489:
488:
487:
478:
471:
470:
465:
457:
450:
449:
420:
419:
416:
413:
410:
389:
382:
381:
376:
368:
361:
360:
344:
338:
337:
336:
329:
278:
255:
232:
231:
215:
192:
185:
184:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2611:
2610:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2521:
2520:
2509:
2504:
2472:
2465:have permission
2455:
2369:this simple FaQ
2354:
2339:
2334:
2302:
2295:have permission
2285:
2269:
2197:this simple FaQ
2182:
2163:
2135:
2132:
2129:
2112:
2109:
2098:
2067:
2064:
2060:
2035:
2032:
1967:
1964:
1907:
1840:
1837:
1774:
1771:
1733:Pulteney Bridge
1654:
1651:
1605:
1585:
1582:
1541:
1538:
1429:
1426:
1408:
1405:
1390:Pulteney Bridge
1352:
1349:
1317:
1314:
1287:
1284:
1211:
1208:
944:This review is
940:
846:
779:
773:
749:High-importance
732:
729:
726:
723:
722:
702:Somerset portal
700:
693:
674:High‑importance
673:
644:High-importance
627:
624:
621:
618:
617:
595:
588:
569:High‑importance
568:
539:High-importance
522:
519:
516:
513:
512:
490:
485:
483:
464:High‑importance
463:
434:High-importance
417:
414:
411:
408:
407:
375:High‑importance
374:
345:on Knowledge's
342:
323:
322:
302:
251:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2609:
2599:
2598:
2593:
2588:
2583:
2578:
2573:
2568:
2563:
2558:
2553:
2548:
2543:
2538:
2533:
2499:
2498:
2491:
2444:
2443:
2435:Added archive
2433:
2425:Added archive
2423:
2415:Added archive
2413:
2405:Added archive
2403:
2395:Added archive
2393:
2385:Added archive
2383:
2375:Added archive
2353:
2350:
2329:
2328:
2321:
2254:
2253:
2245:Added archive
2243:
2235:Added archive
2233:
2225:Added archive
2223:
2215:Added archive
2213:
2207:
2181:
2178:
2162:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2128:
2125:
2097:
2094:
2092:
2090:
2089:
2059:
2056:
2054:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1912:
1911:
1906:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1819:
1818:
1809:
1806:
1803:Thomas Baldwin
1760:
1759:
1754:
1751:
1748:
1745:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1735:
1730:
1725:
1723:Royal Crescent
1717:
1712:
1709:
1702:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1672:
1669:
1666:
1634:
1633:
1627:
1621:
1615:
1604:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1576:
1575:
1566:Images of Bath
1497:
1496:
1474:
1473:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1454:
1451:
1423:
1421:
1420:
1401:
1400:
1394:Royal Crescent
1385:
1384:
1379:
1378:
1365:
1364:
1344:
1343:
1330:
1329:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1244:
1243:
1227:
1204:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1189:Pass or Fail:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
987:
986:
985:
955:
954:
939:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
877:Bath, Somerset
845:
842:
839:
838:
777:
765:
764:
761:
760:
757:
756:
745:
739:
738:
736:
719:the discussion
706:
705:
689:
677:
676:
668:
656:
655:
652:
651:
640:
634:
633:
631:
614:the discussion
601:
600:
584:
572:
571:
563:
551:
550:
547:
546:
535:
529:
528:
526:
509:the discussion
496:
495:
492:England portal
479:
467:
466:
458:
446:
445:
442:
441:
430:
424:
423:
421:
409:Historic sites
404:the discussion
400:historic sites
390:
378:
377:
372:Historic sites
369:
357:
356:
350:
339:
325:
324:
303:
282:
281:
279:
271:
270:
267:
266:
263:
256:
248:
247:
244:
241:
237:
236:
228:
227:
193:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2608:
2597:
2594:
2592:
2589:
2587:
2584:
2582:
2579:
2577:
2574:
2572:
2569:
2567:
2564:
2562:
2559:
2557:
2554:
2552:
2549:
2547:
2544:
2542:
2539:
2537:
2534:
2532:
2529:
2528:
2526:
2519:
2518:
2513:
2508:
2507:
2496:
2492:
2489:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2476:
2470:
2466:
2462:
2458:
2452:
2447:
2442:
2438:
2434:
2432:
2428:
2424:
2422:
2418:
2414:
2412:
2408:
2404:
2402:
2398:
2394:
2392:
2388:
2384:
2382:
2378:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2370:
2366:
2362:
2357:
2349:
2348:
2343:
2338:
2337:
2326:
2322:
2319:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2306:
2300:
2296:
2292:
2288:
2282:
2277:
2273:
2267:
2263:
2259:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2242:
2238:
2234:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2222:
2218:
2214:
2212:
2208:
2206:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2185:
2177:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2156:
2153:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2142:
2139:
2138:
2124:
2123:
2119:
2116:
2115:
2105:
2102:
2093:
2088:
2085:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2074:
2071:
2070:
2055:
2046:
2042:
2039:
2038:
2030:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2014:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
1996:
1992:
1989:
1985:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1974:
1971:
1970:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1909:
1908:
1898:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1872:
1867:
1861:
1858:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1847:
1844:
1843:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1817:
1814:
1810:
1807:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1781:
1778:
1777:
1768:
1766:
1758:
1755:
1752:
1749:
1746:
1743:
1739:
1736:
1734:
1731:
1729:
1726:
1724:
1721:
1720:
1718:
1716:
1713:
1710:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1694:
1691:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1670:
1667:
1665:
1661:
1658:
1657:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1640:
1631:
1628:
1625:
1624:User:SilkTork
1622:
1619:
1616:
1613:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1596:
1592:
1589:
1588:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1574:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1558:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1548:
1545:
1544:
1535:
1531:
1529:
1525:
1520:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1504:
1501:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1476:
1475:
1472:
1469:
1465:
1460:
1455:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1446:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1436:
1433:
1432:
1419:
1415:
1412:
1411:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1386:
1381:
1380:
1377:
1374:
1370:
1367:
1366:
1363:
1359:
1356:
1355:
1346:
1345:
1342:
1339:
1335:
1332:
1331:
1328:
1324:
1321:
1320:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1303:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1290:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1241:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1218:
1215:
1214:
1207:
1196:
1195:
1188:
1187:
1185:
1182:
1176:
1175:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1159:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1145:
1144:
1138:
1132:
1131:
1124:
1123:
1121:
1117:
1111:
1110:
1103:
1102:
1100:
1099:
1094:
1088:
1087:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1068:
1067:
1065:
1061:
1055:
1054:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1019:
1018:
1016:
1015:
1010:
1006:
1000:
999:
992:
988:
984:
983:
976:
975:
973:
969:
968:
967:
966:
964:
961:review – see
960:
953:
951:
947:
942:
941:
927:
923:
919:
915:
911:
910:
909:
906:
902:
901:
900:
896:
892:
887:
886:
885:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
865:
864:
863:
859:
855:
851:
835:
831:
828:
825:
821:
817:
813:
810:
807:
804:
801:
798:
795:
792:
789:
785:
782:
781:Find sources:
778:
771:
770:
754:
750:
744:
741:
740:
737:
720:
716:
712:
711:
703:
697:
692:
690:
687:
683:
682:
678:
672:
669:
666:
662:
661:
649:
645:
639:
636:
635:
632:
615:
611:
607:
606:
598:
592:
587:
585:
582:
578:
577:
573:
567:
564:
561:
557:
556:
544:
540:
534:
531:
530:
527:
510:
506:
502:
501:
493:
482:
480:
477:
473:
472:
468:
462:
459:
456:
452:
451:
439:
435:
429:
426:
425:
422:
405:
401:
397:
396:
391:
388:
384:
383:
379:
373:
370:
367:
363:
362:
358:
354:
348:
340:
331:
330:
321:
319:
318:
313:
309:
300:
299:
294:
292:
291:Did you know?
286:
280:
277:
273:
272:
264:
262:
261:
257:
254:
250:
249:
245:
242:
239:
238:
233:
229:
224:
222:
221:
213:
209:
205:
204:
203:
197:
194:
191:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
2503:
2500:
2475:source check
2454:
2448:
2445:
2358:
2355:
2333:
2330:
2305:source check
2284:
2278:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2255:
2186:
2183:
2164:
2133:
2130:
2110:
2106:
2103:
2099:
2091:
2065:
2061:
2053:
2033:
1965:
1938:
1838:
1772:
1769:
1761:
1701:
1652:
1635:
1606:
1583:
1562:Bath in Time
1556:
1539:
1536:
1532:
1521:
1505:
1502:
1498:
1481:
1477:
1444:
1427:
1422:
1406:
1368:
1350:
1333:
1315:
1285:
1249:
1209:
1205:
1203:
1183:
1140:
1119:
1096:
1081:B. Focused:
1063:
1012:
1008:
993:compliance:
971:
965:for criteria
957:
956:
943:
847:
829:
823:
815:
808:
802:
796:
790:
780:
748:
708:
643:
619:Architecture
610:Architecture
603:
566:Architecture
538:
498:
433:
393:
353:WikiProjects
315:
305:
296:
288:
258:
218:
216:
212:please do so
200:
199:
195:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
2272:Sourcecheck
2096:Final sweep
1799:Ralph Allen
1618:User:Elekhh
946:transcluded
903:Tis done.—
806:free images
148:free images
31:not a forum
2525:Categories
2512:Report bug
2342:Report bug
1984:Bath Stone
1757:Bath Stone
1478:Urban form
1014:verifiable
889:ha-ha. :)
295:column on
206:under the
2495:this tool
2488:this tool
2325:this tool
2318:this tool
1943:NellieBly
1206:Reviewer:
938:GA Review
285:Main Page
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
2501:Cheers.—
2331:Cheers.—
2161:Panorama
2136:SilkTork
2113:SilkTork
2068:SilkTork
2036:SilkTork
1968:SilkTork
1841:SilkTork
1775:SilkTork
1747:Churches
1655:SilkTork
1586:SilkTork
1557:Response
1542:SilkTork
1445:Response
1430:SilkTork
1409:SilkTork
1392:and the
1369:Response
1353:SilkTork
1334:Response
1318:SilkTork
1288:SilkTork
1250:Response
1212:SilkTork
1141:contain
1139:Does it
963:WP:WIAGA
869:this pic
724:Somerset
715:Somerset
671:Somerset
343:GA-class
220:reassess
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
2365:my edit
2258:checked
2193:my edit
2167:ProfDEH
2013:WP:Lead
1676:ProfDEH
1184:Overall
1098:neutral
891:doncram
854:doncram
812:WPÂ refs
800:scholar
751:on the
646:on the
541:on the
514:England
505:England
461:England
436:on the
287:in the
243:Process
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
2266:failed
1876:Elekhh
1526:. And
1486:Elekhh
1143:images
1120:stable
1118:Is it
1095:Is it
1062:Is it
1007:Is it
970:Is it
918:Elekhh
871:which
784:Google
349:scale.
265:Listed
246:Result
126:Google
948:from
850:ha-ha
827:JSTOR
788:books
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
2262:true
2171:talk
2127:Pass
1947:talk
1939:pink
1890:Bath
1880:talk
1708:Lead
1680:talk
1564:and
1528:this
1524:here
1517:here
1513:This
1509:This
1490:talk
1011:and
922:talk
895:talk
858:talk
820:FENS
794:news
743:High
638:High
533:High
428:High
308:Bath
240:Date
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
2469:RfC
2439:to
2429:to
2419:to
2409:to
2399:to
2389:to
2379:to
2299:RfC
2276:).
2264:or
2249:to
2239:to
2229:to
2219:to
2152:Rod
2084:Rod
2031:.
1988:Rod
1894:Rod
1857:Rod
1813:Rod
1690:Rod
1639:Rod
1570:Rod
1468:Rod
1373:Rod
1338:Rod
1254:Rod
1044:C.
991:MoS
989:B.
905:Rod
881:Rod
834:TWL
176:TWL
2527::
2482:.
2477:}}
2473:{{
2312:.
2307:}}
2303:{{
2274:}}
2270:{{
2173:)
1949:)
1882:)
1836:.
1832:,
1828:,
1801:,
1797:,
1793:,
1682:)
1492:)
1279:,
1271:,
1186::
1169::
1153::
1122:?
1101:?
1066:?
1048::
1017:?
974:?
959:GA
924:)
897:)
860:)
814:)
223:it
214:.
156:)
54:;
2514:)
2510:(
2497:.
2490:.
2344:)
2340:(
2327:.
2320:.
2169:(
2140:*
2117:*
2072:*
2040:*
1972:*
1945:(
1878:(
1845:*
1779:*
1678:(
1659:*
1590:*
1546:*
1488:(
1434:*
1413:*
1399:.
1357:*
1322:*
1292:*
1216:*
920:(
893:(
856:(
830:·
824:·
816:·
809:·
803:·
797:·
791:·
786:(
755:.
650:.
545:.
440:.
355:.
320:?
301:.
293:"
289:"
225:.
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
