Wikipedia:Peer review/St Chad's Church, Poulton-le-Fylde/archive1

St Chad's Church, Poulton-le-Fylde edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it at WP:GAN and this is my first attempt to get an architectural article to GA standard. I'm not an architect so any suggestions or criticism of the architecture section would be particularly appreciated.

Thanks, Beloved Freak 12:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Llywrth

Just a few questions that I hope this article would answer:

The opening section states that this church was "owned" by several different individuals. As someone who lives in a country where churches are legally owned by either their congregations or the denomination, what does "owned" mean? For example, did the owner receive a share of the donations or tithes? (I know that this is an issue that is tangential to the central subject of the article, but a sentence or two about this with a link to the generalized discussion of this phenomena would meet my expectations.)
The article mentions that the graveyard was full. Since I suspect this was not a unique situation for, at least Britain, how does it compare to the same problem at other churches & their churchyards?
A last question about the graveyard. The article notes that people who are not members of its congregation want to be buried there -- well, at least their ashes interred there. Is there a reason for this? Other than personal or familial ties?

Hope these questions help you. I'm at the first steps of writing articles about the more notable churches of Ethiopia (one example is Wukro Chirkos), & I'm still unclear what I need to include in an article about them to make it useful to the average reader. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for having a look at this! You've raised some interestng points I hadn't thought of. --Beloved Freak 09:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My answers to these points:

I'm working on making this clearer with regards to advowsons etc. and I may insert a footnote with a better explanation.
You're right that this wasn't a unique situation and I've inserted a footnote that I hope sufficiently deals with this.
I can't find anything in my sources about why people from outside the parish would want to be buried there, if I do find anything, I'll add it.

Thanks again! --Beloved Freak 12:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed this in the PR pending list, and will give you my comments in the next day or two if that's all right. At first sight it looks pretty good, but I'll give it proper scrutiny and then comment in detail here. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated! --Beloved Freak 16:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

I intended to glance at this today and do a more thorough reading tomorrow, but I found the article irresistible, and have already re-read with much pleasure. I offer these few very minor drafting points.

Lead
- "endowed to" – I have never seen this verb and this preposition together, and the OED cites no examples of that combination. A technical use, perhaps? Do any of your sources so use the phrase?
  - Nope, I seem to have made that up. :) Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "advowson" – I know you have blue-linked the word here, and later explain it in the main text, but I wonder if a passing explanation might be helpful to your readers at this point in the lead?
  - Not done this yet, but will sort something. Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I am conscious of WP:OVERLINK I wonder if you might consider (and then, if you wish, reject) blue-linking Georgian and Jacobean.
  - I deliberately left them unlinked to try to reduce the blue linkage in the lead, but since you noticed their absence - I've linked them for now and will see how they sit.Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You'll get flak for underdoing or overdoing the links whatever you do, so I'd go with whatever you feel comfortable with. Tim riley (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
History
- "as a cell of the Abbey" – plainly a very technical term, and I am sure used correctly here, but I wonder if a more immediately familiar term, such as "subsidiary" or "offshoot" might be easier for your readers. Your call, naturally.
  - Changed to "offshoot".Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "When Roger was banished from the country…" This comes on the reader somewhat unexpectedly; I wonder if "Roger was banished from the country in [date] and…" might flow better.
  - Can't find a date as yet in my sources (or an exact one in our article) but I will look out for it. In the mean time, I've slightly reworded it. Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looks perfect to me as now drawn. Tim riley (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1196 he quitclaimed his right" – again, skirting round hard words, I wonder if you might perhaps pipe this as [[quitclaimed|relinquished]]
  - done. Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mea maxima culpa. I now think the link to "Quitclaimed" should be piped not just from the word "relinquished" as I suggested, but from the phase "relinquished his right", which I am sure will make it clearer to your readers why there is a blue link there. (On its own, "relinquished" just looks like WP:OVERLINK.) Humble apols. Tim riley (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1751 the church was significantly renovated" – strange adverb: what did the renovation signify? Perhaps "much" or "thoroughly" or some such.
  - How's "extensively"?Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perfect. Tim riley (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "A round Norman-style apse was added in 1868" – as the immediately preceding information has all been about the graveyard, it might be helpful to give a touch on the tiller by saying "…was added to the church in 1868".
  - done. Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The incumbent, Rev. Thomas Clarke" – this should have the definite article before "Rev."
  - done.Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The advowson to Poulton that had been in the possession of the Fleetwood/Hesketh family for approximately 400 years was sold" – as there was only one such advowson for Poulton, I'd make this a describing rather than what looks like a defining clause, changing it to "The advowson to Poulton, which had been in the possession of the Fleetwood/Hesketh family for approximately 400 years, was sold…"
  - done. Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exterior
- ""Insignia Rici Fleetwood an hujus eccliae patronis, Anno Dni 1699" – translation, please, even if only in a footnote.
  - I don't have a translation in a source - do you mean just translate it myself? (Not that I really know Latin, but I could figure something out...) Does that not count as WP:OR?Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm so old that Latin was a modern language when I was at school. I'll add a translation in a note if that's all right with you. Please let me know. Tim riley (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "There are two more restored doorways" – is the previously mentioned doorway restored?
  - No, sorted that. Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interior and fittings
- "a cross between a railway carriage and the centre piece of a gondola" – irrelevant comment by TR: I reckon your 1883 commentator had recently seen Gilbert and Sullivan's new opera Iolanthe ("something between a large bathing machine and a very small second class carriage"). But I digress. Pay no attention to this.
  - Ah, I'm not familiar with G&S, but that's an interesting titbit!Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "diamond-shaped representations of an individual's coat of arms" – one individual or six? I guess the latter, but this reads as though it is the former.
  - I've hopefully made this clearer.Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "representations of individual coat of arms" - you need to pipe to [[coat of arms|coats of arms]]
Churchyard
- "resting-place" – is the hyphen needed?
  - removed. Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "there is a gravestone marking the grave of Edward Sherdley (d. 1741)." – If he was, or was thought to be, the pirate in question you could make the connection clearer by turning the full stop after "(d. 1741)" into a semicolon.
  - changed. Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Present day and assessment
- Rev. Martin Keighley – two things about this. First, it rather goes against the general presumption against including information liable to get out of date; secondly if you are including it, the Reverend gentleman needs his definite article.
  - Hmm. I'm not sure. I'm inclined to keep him in for the time being, he kept cropping up in sources and I felt I didn't have much on the present day. Would it help to make it an "as of 2011..."? Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's certainly one approach to stable encyclopaedic language; the other is to take refuge in dates of appointment, e.g. "the Rev. X. Y. was appointed in 1999", which will always remain correct even if you vanish from the scene and the article languishes unupdated. Tim riley (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hugely enjoyed this article. You conjure the place up most graphically. I have never seen the church but I feel almost that I have. Bravo! – Tim riley (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the kind words! And thanks for the helpful suggestions, I'll start working through them.--Beloved Freak 19:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks a lot - quite a few things there I wouldn't have thought of or noticed myself. Beloved Freak 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come back with a supplementary quibble, but I question the upper case T in "The Fylde". We musn't use WP articles as a source, I know, but the WP article entitled "The Fylde" calls the area "the [lower case] Fylde" in the body of the text. Other than that, I have run out of pernickety comments on this most pleasing article. I am in too deep here to feel entirely at liberty to review it for GA, but if you ever take it on to FAC please do not forget to tell me on my talk page and I will add my support. If nobody else comes forward to do the GA assessment, let me know and I'll check with the authorities if it is okay for me to step in. Tim riley (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've sorted everything now. "The Fylde" is slightly tricky—it's come up before, and I've seen it both ways in sources. I've made it lower-case now, and I think it's looks slightly less jarring. Regarding the vicar, I found out when he appointed vicar of St Chad's, but not over the benefice (and his cv seems to have a bit missing). I've reworded to reflect this, but it doesn't flow quite as well now. I don't know if you have any suggestions for that. I would be very greatful if you would add a translation of the Latin for me. I get the gist of what it's saying, but I'd probably get the syntax wrong. (I also have a feeling hujus might not mean "huge"...) --Beloved Freak 09:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]