Talk:Blakeney Chapel

Comments

You asked for comments at WikiProject Architecture. I have just a couple that leap out:

• the subject is Blakeney Chapel but sentence two says the building was "probably not a chapel" - maybe it needs an early clarification about why it is called Blakeney Chapel!
• the final section about threats, maybe needs to start (rather than end) with the sentence "The 'chapel' ruins are now to the north of the river embankment, and essentially unprotected from coastal erosion. They will be buried as a shingle spit continues to move south, and then lost to the sea, perhaps within 20–30 years." This will explain the lengthy statistics about coastal movement and remedial options.
  

Hope that helps! Sionk (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Explanation for lack of photos showing the structure

Clicking through the lead image description, it is mentioned in http://www.helm.org.uk/server/show/ConCaseStudy.97 that "The walls of the building were partly re-buried for H&S reasons, but the ground-plan of the structure was left clearly visible for public inspection so long as the monument survives." Perhaps the fact that the remaining structures were reburied after excavation should be mentioned in the article, to help explain why the lead image doesn't show any foundations? --202.28.181.200 (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. There were useful photos taken during the excavations, which I have in the printed documents. They must be copyrighted to one of HELM, the company , or the project leader. I can't trace the project leader, who may be working abroad, and the company no longer exists. HELM, who claim copyright on two images on the case study page, didn't even bother to reply to my request for help. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability?

I can't believe this article is regarded as "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community". It may be well-written and well-referenced with archaeological reports but there is little of substance in it, apart from a large amount of padding about what the building seemed to have been made of, coastal erosion in the general area, and pictures with a tenuous connection with the subject. The whole article can almost be summed up in one sentence: "there was a building there once but not any more". There is no suggestion that the building was notable, no suggestion that the archaeology is notable, no suggestion that the site of the vanished ruins is notable. What on earth? Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that was my reaction upon reading the article as well. There is very little in the article to establish why it is regarded as a site of historical importance or extraordinary archaeological interest. The mechanics of the writing and the layout are all good, and there are a lot of peripheral details, but the article doesn't distinguish this ruin from any other that might be found in northern Europe. alanyst 16:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NN and WP:GNG for Wikipedia's notrabilty guidelines. What matters is if the subject has received significant coverage in relaible sources, which this has. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is not whether the subject is notable; I'm sure it is. The problem is that the article does not successfully convey why it is notable. alanyst 17:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's classified as a scheduled monument and a listed building by the appropriate government statutory bodies and it's 500 years old. The conservation bodies considered it important enough to fund two expensive excavations. We have FAs on US "historic" buildings that are only 100 years old. The article states its conservation status and its age, and gives all the available facts. Are you saying that a 500 year old building isn't notable because it's fallen down? FWIW, my previous archaeological effort, St Nicholas, Blakeney, could be criticised as just one of hundreds of medieval churches in northern Europe, notable only because it's a listed building. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

maps

Can you mabey add some more maps of the area preferbly histoical maps with a timline. Nhog (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blakeney Chapel. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6AxoEYZ20?url=http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1001342.pdf to http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1001342.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121216153828/http://environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/108980.aspx to http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/108980.aspx

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blakeney Chapel. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.heritage.norfolk.gov.uk/nhegateway/DataFiles/docs/AssocDoc1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303214443/http://www.geoeast.org.uk/geoimap/norfpdf/NEH_screen_part1.pdf to http://www.geoeast.org.uk/geoimap/norfpdf/NEH_screen_part1.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)