Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Listed buildings in Widnes/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 19:13, 21 September 2009 [1].

Listed buildings in Widnes edit

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this as a featured list candidate because it is a complete list of all the listed buildings in the town of Widnes. The text has been copyedited. It has not had a peer review because its format is similar to the FLs List of listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area) and List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area), other than that the "Refs" column has been omitted, the citations having been added to the "Description" column. The title has been recently changed by deleting "List of" in line with the consensus reached here. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

Comments from Hassocks5489

Lovely, well-presented list as ever from Peter. Some small tweaks needed, but no significant concerns:

~Lead~

  • "These buildings are in three grades" sounds a bit awkward. Perhaps "Buildings are categorised in three grades" or similar?
  • "Before 1847, the area now occupied by the town of Widnes consisted of the hamlets of Farnworth, Cronton, Appleton and Upton, and a few scattered houses, separated by farmland much of which was marshy." The punctuation and the third clause sit uneasily together. Perhaps streamline to "...Upton, a few scattered houses, and areas of mostly marshy farmland." Various possibilities there for rewording, I think; not sure how best to proceed.
  • "...came to the area." "Reached" is more suitable.

~Table~

  • Dates all sort correctly.
  • There is inconsistency in the use of 4, 5 or 6 decimal places for the decimal coordinates.
  • Does this matter? More than 4 decimal places seem unnecessary for larger buildings like churches. I've tried reducing the coordinates for the sewer vent and the war memorial to 4 places, but these are not quite accurate enough. Is it OK to leave them as they are? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Runcorn Railway Bridge's refs seem to have a line-break: was that intended?
  • Not sure about this, but I think architectural styles such as "Perpendicular" are usually capitalised. "Classical" is more arguable.
  • I'd be inclined to make the coordinates unsortable.
  • I wondered about this too. They seem to sort north-south, but this is probably of little use. What do others think about this? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~ALT text~

  • Present and looks compliant with WP:ALT: good stuff.
  • Typo in St Luke's Church, Farnworth text: "crenelated" →"crenellated"
  • In the former power house, perhaps "rear" instead of "back"?
  • Typos in Norland's House: "partway" →"pathway" and "lead" →"leads"
  • Typos in the Highfield Road terrace: "story" →"storey", "cxourse" →"course" and "garden" →"gardens"
  • Other typos noted in St Bede's Church and the Silver Jubilee Bridge. Plse audit all ALT texts in case there are others.
  • In the station pics, "a sign to the left" would be better than "the sign to the left".
  • All the above dealt with - and more. Hope all the alt text is now OK. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~Refs~

  • Hardie (1950) appears in the Bibliography, so ref [18] should take a Harvnb template for consistency. Use {{Harvnb|Hardie|1950|loc=p. facing 108}} to deal with the non-standard page reference.
  • Alphabetical order in Bibliography: swap Morris (2005) and Nickson (1987) round.
  • Are Foster and Cowan pamphlets or similar publications, rather than books? I'd be tempted to put them in Harvnb templates even if they are pamphlets, but this is only personal preference really.
  • They are pamphlets. I have deleted the Foster ref because it adds nothing to the Images of England description. Cowan is now in the bibliography with a Harvard template. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My editing will be severely restricted from 1st to 18th September because of holiday (computer rooms on cruise ships are all very well, but not at about £20 per hour!), so I will keep this FAC on watch until Monday night. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hassocks. All of my comments have been addressed, and the point about precision of coordinates has been explained to my satisfaction (buildings with a small footprint such as chimneys → more decimal places needed to ensure precision). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just a further thought (not to do with the FL candidacy): on the Catalyst image, it might be an idea to obscure the registration plates of the three cars that are in full view. I can read them when I look at the full-size image, and blanking them out is generally advised these days because of the increased "popularity" of car cloning. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't think of that. Done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Very well done.
  • "Of the 21 listed buildings in the town, five are classified by English Heritage as Grade II*, and 16 as Grade II;" When you list comparable quantities such as these, write them out in the same way; that is, 21, 5, and 16; or twenty-one, five, and sixteen.
  • Is there a link for Victoria Park (be sure to dab it though)?
  • No, it exists as a redlink on the Victoria Park dab page. Clicking on the link provides the information that an article about it was deleted in 2006. I am not surprised about this; the park is not particularly notable (I cannot, for example, find that it is listed) and the same applies to its history. Best left as it is, I think. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only other issue I can see is inconsistency in the usage of the serial comma; for example "Also built before 1847 are three houses, a bridewell adjacent to St Luke's Church, and the lock at the terminus of the Sankey Canal" but "consisted of the hamlets of Farnworth, Cronton, Appleton and Upton"
  • "Before 1847, the area now occupied by the town of Widnes consisted of the hamlets of Farnworth, Cronton, Appleton and Upton, a few scattered houses, and areas of mostly marshy farmland." Because the listed items have internal commas, use semicolons (also address the serial comma issue I highlighted): "Before 1847, the area now occupied by the town of Widnes consisted of the hamlets of Farnworth, Cronton, Appleton and Upton; a few scattered houses; and areas of mostly marshy farmland."
  • "A two-storey two-bay wing"-->A two-storey, two-bay wing
  • "is a late 18th-century brown"-->is a late-18th-century brown
  • "sandstone ashlar pulpit" Three consecutive links that look like one big link; surely at least one of these (if not two) can go? I lean toward removing the links to sandstone and pulpit.
  • "sandstone" is linked elsewhere, so for consistency it should be linked here. I have rephrased it to make it only a two-consecutive-link, which is consistent with elsewhere. Does this work OK?
  • "The main windows are in Decorated " Can you pipe-link Decorated to the specific section about that style in the linked article?

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "The Hollies" should be sorted as "Hollies, The". -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this is a great example of what this kind of article ought to look like. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • I am concerned about the similarities in some of the description details and the accompanying references. I'm not sure if this is a valid concern so have asked Moonriddengirl, who's more qualified in this area, to take a look. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about copyright issues and should certainly welcome an expert's advice. It's a bit difficult when you're giving a brief architectural description to do it in alternative wording, etc. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but I'm afraid that I agree. US copyright law (which governs Wikipedia) not only protects the language, but also the organization of a piece. The facts are protected, but unless the structure of those facts is devoid of creativity, fact selection and arrangement is. Let's take for example the following text (I'm not carrying over wikilinks just because its easier not to):

This sewer ventilation shaft is built in red brick with a blue brick plinth. It is approximately 30 feet (9 m) high and 4 feet (1 m) square internally. The vent has a projecting cap with a corbel support. It is the only remaining shaft of an early sewage system designed to take effluent from the local chemical industry

This is a summary of the cited source, [2]

Red brick with blue brick plinth standing approximately thirty feet high and four feet square internally.... The vent has a weathered projecting cap with corbel support. The only remaining shaft of an early sewage system designed to take effluent from the chemical industry.

I've removed the one sentence that was not carried over. Not only is this the same information in the same order, but some of the language is duplicated. The article's sentence "It is the only remaining shaft of an early sewage system designed to take effluent from the local chemical industry", copies that of the source, with only two words tacked on to the beginning. Rewriting this kind of thing is a pain, but, unfortunately, we don't have much choice unless we use limited amounts in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline. The site, sadly, does not permit free re-use: "© English Heritage 2007 - All rights reserved."
Another more problematic entry

St Michael's is a Catholic church built in red sandstone ashlar with a slate roof. Its plan is cruciform with an eight-bay arcade which passes by the short transepts to the chancel. At the west end of the nave there is a tower with a steep saddleback roof. It was built for a Jesuit community expelled from Germany in 1872.

This is a much more succinct summary, eliminating several sentences, but still contains some problems. Compare with the source:

Catholic Church 1876-9, by Henry Clutton, in red sandstone ashlar with slate roof. Cruciform with 8 bay arcade which passes the short transepts and takes in the chancel. At the west end of the nave there is an impressive tower with steep saddleback roof.... Built for a Jesuit community expelled from Germany in 1872.

Organization of facts is less the issue here that duplication of text is. The last two sentences of the article are almost verbatim.
This kind of close paraphrasing does constitute a copyright concern. It would be good to evaluate each entry to ensure that other such similarities in structure and language do not persist. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. OK, thanks for that. I'll have a go at rewriting the problematic descriptions – but it will not be for a few days. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - I'm now going to be incredibly rude and say the list doesn't match the sources enough. There's a few minor differences between the English Heritage site and the date column, which may need fixing. On the source...

  • Runcorn Bridge was built between 1864-68, listed as 1868.
  • Former power house was built 1901, listed as 1910.
  • Cemetery chapels was built 1897, listed as 1895.
  • Wayside pulpit, St Mary's Church was built circa 1910, listed as 1908-10.
  • Silver Jubilee Bridge was built between 1956-61, listed as 1961.

--Jpeeling (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Not rude at all! In two cases I had given completion dates rather then ranges - amended; two were typos - corrected; I had given the pulpit date the same as the church - now amended per ref.

I have re-written most of the descriptions in a way that I hope now avoids any copyright violations. Are they now OK? Do I need to alert Moonriddengirl to this, or will she be watching this page? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They look OK to me, but I have asked MRG to return and take a look. One final seperate comment from me would be possible inconsistent capitalisation, for example some churchs are capitalised while others not, is there a reason for this? --Jpeeling (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Corrected. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Moonriddengirl may be too busy to take a look but I'm pretty sure the descriptions are now fine, all other comments resolved. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry for my delay in responding. I've had a look, and I think that the descriptions have been well-rewritten. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the trouble you have both taken over this matter. I've learnt a lot. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Listed_buildings_in_Widnes/archive1&oldid=1207834593"