Talk:St Peter's Church, Forncett

A few observations

Buckland1072 - First off, it is great to see a well-written, well-researched, and detailed article about a church. Congratulations. There are a few issues however:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - when we're writing in Wikipedia's voice, we try to use a neutral tone. There are a lot of subjective comments which shouldn't really be here. Examples include - unique / historic gem / remarkably / beautiful surroundings / outstanding / vibrant / attractive / striking. There are more! Where you want a qualifier, particularly if it's a superlative like unique, you need to reference it to someone. You've done this with the tower, where you indicate who is saying it is "one of the best in the country".
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - The whole of the, completely uncited, second paragraph of the "Role of the church" section would be great for the parish magazine, but it's not suitable for Wikipedia. It's basically the church speaking about its own mission. Details of services are fine. There are a few more instances where the article shades into "parish newsletter" mode.
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - care needs to be taken when writing about subjects to which you are connected. It's not always easy to remain objective in such situations.
• Help:Infobox - You might think about an infobox. There is one for churches and they can give a good structure to an article.

Don't be discouraged by the above. You've done a grand job on the article, but I thought it might help if I gave a few pointers for improvement. KJP1 (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, KJP1, for your helpful comments for improving the article, and more generally, for your encouragement. This was my first article and I accepted the text given by by the Friends of St Peter's as it was. I agree with the points you make, and have a better understanding of Wikipedia neutral voice now. I'll edit the article over the next few days and may be you would have time to take a look when I've finished and see what you think? Many thanks Buckland1072 (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I should be delighted to take another look. Just ping me, KJP1, and I’ll come back. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

KJP1 Hi, thanks for the offer. The person I liaise with at the Friends of St Peter's has been in touch to say that she'd like to be involved in the editing, but is in the middle of a family health scare. Would you mind if I leave the editing til mid-January? She is sending me a published source which I think will also be helpful. Buckland1072 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Buckland1072 - Absolutely no problem at all. One of the beauties of this place is that there is rarely much hurry. The church certainly merits a great article, there should be plenty of source material, and I’ve always found collaborative efforts on here the most fruitful, as well as the most enjoyable, approach. Ping me whenever you and your colleague are ready. And enjoy the festive season. KJP1 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

KJP1 Hello again. I see you've started making a few edits and do apologise for the time its taken me to get back to you. I do have a draft of the revised article in my sandbox which I'll finish today and send you a link to. That's the trouble with no deadline, other distractions get in the way.Buckland1072 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

KJP1 Hi, I've got a revision finished now if you have time to look it over? It's in my sandbox at this address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Buckland1072/sandbox Can you see it there? Sorry I'm rather ignorant of the way of doing some things in Wikipedia. I think the article is much improved, but the references seem a bit clumsily done, and I realise now that taking a snapshot to my sandbox means that currently I don't have the changes you and others have made in the last 6 months. Any and all advice would be much appreciated. Kind regards Buckland1072 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

KJP1 I've uploaded my revision of the article to the Wikipedia page now, and included the changes made to it since I took the snapshot to work on in Dec 2021, so hopefully no one elses contributions have been lost. I thought that was probably the sensible way for you and others to see and amend it and that I had been too hesitant leaving it in my sandbox. I hope the time its taken me to do the revision has not ****** you off - I was very grateful for your suggestions. Thanks. Buckland1072 (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Buckland1072 - Absolutely not! I’m currently sweltering in southern Spain, so a bit off-Wiki. I shall take a look as soon as I can. KJP1 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Buckland1072 - You've done an absolutely fantastic job and I think the article is looking great. The 'parish newsletter' tone has, almost completely!, gone, it's very well sourced, and has a great structure. On a stylistic point - the issue of how to cite is a bit contentious on Wikipedia. There is no 'right' style, the only requirement being for consistency. For myself, I like to split out the published sources from the references. I also use {{Sfn}} but other editors hate it! You can see an example of what I mean, here. For me, the great advantage is that it avoids the need for multiple repeats of the same book. The glaring example here is Izat & Webster, The Parish Church of Forncett St Peter. An Historical Guide. This appears 12 times in the references, because you, quite rightly, quote specific page numbers. But if you split them out, this could be reduced to one appearance in a Sources section. But, to repeat, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way you've done it. Many congraultations on the great improvements you've made. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 9:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

KJP1 Thanks very much for your feedback - I'm glad you think it's much improved. I can see the improvement myself and am very grateful for your help. I'd like to move on from the parochial altogether - probably need to change the end of the lead section? I'll have a go. Re the citations, I prefer the example you gave - it is much clearer and avoids all the duplication that I found so clumsy. I think I'll try to swap over, though I might have a bit of a breather first. I've learnt alot - many thanks for the encouragement. Buckland1072 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)