Talk:St Mary's Church, Nantwich

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Espresso Addict in topic Lead image
Good articleSt Mary's Church, Nantwich has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 23, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Picture

edit

The picture's a bit dark -- would you like me to try and take another one some time when the sun is in the right direction? (That is, if there's ever any sun this so-called summer...) The ones on Geograph were rubbish last time I looked. Espresso Addict 15:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:St Mary's Church, Nantwich/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    Generally very good, however the prose tends to be a tad stilted, some of which reads more like a series of single sentances rather than flowing. For example, "Sandstone from quarries at Runcorn was used in the restoration. Not everyone was happy with Scott's restoration." While I don't feel that this needs to be perfect (like always, you'll probably want to dig up a good copyeditor before trying for FAC anyway), it might be worthing making a pass through the prose and seeing if it can be made to flow a little better.
    B. MoS compliance:  
    I'm curious as to whether or not "Decorated doorway and a Perpendicular window" should be capitalised, but otherwise it seems fine to me.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    The Netnous source is one I'd find doubtful, but otherwise they seem fine, and Netnous is only used the once in a non-contraversial manner.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    I'd really like to see a bit more on structure or present day. While there isn't much to be added about the structure, perhaps, it does seem a tad unbalanced that so much time was spent on the fittings, and so little on the building itself. With the present day section, it seems a tad light, and I'd be inclined to at least mention the current rector, and (if available) the size of the congregation. Perhaps even a bit about current secular uses, such as the performance of concerts in the church.
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    It isn't a knock-down reason to fail the GA or anything, but having read so much about the fittings of the church I'd have liked to have seen a photo or two of the interior, or perhaps even a detail shot of the exterior. If you can grab one it would be great - if not, I wouldn't fail it for GA on these grounds alone.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

On the whole I really rather liked the article, and would really like to pass it for GA. Not all of the concerns listed above are essential, but if possible I think a bit more on present uses and a slightly better flow to the text would help. I'll put it on hold for a week, as I can't imagine that there will be much (if any) trouble making the small adjustments for GA. - Bilby (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Response to GA Review

edit

First of all, many thanks for picking up the article and commenting so quickly. I thought I might have to wait the usual few weeks or more!

  • 1A I've had a go at improving the stilted flow. To a degree this results from trying to write from sources which can be cited. Anyway, I've tried to improve the flow. I hope it is good enough.
  • 1B Architectural sources use capitalised Decorated etc as a convention. In fact it can be useful to differentiate between Decorated (as a style) and decorated (as an adjective). See my amendments to "Structure" to see how this works. As this is an article in the architecture genre, I feel the convention should be used.
  • 3A When the source material is unbalanced, it's a bit difficult to make the sections of similar length. I have been let down by Images of England, which usually has loads of info about the architecture; in this case it is minimal. I've added some stuff (a bit idiosyncratic) from Pevsner to "Structure". I've also found a bit more to add to the "Present day" section. To add more to the latter would just be to reproduce what's on the links, which is really a waste of time.
  • 6B Images have been a problem. Ironically I visited the church last week (unexpectedly) without a camera. I have found little in the way of free-use images. But this is counteracted by the additional material I have added in the "Present day" and "External links" sections. The photos by Craig Thornber are particularly good. I hope that the links will fill the gap.

Further comments welcomed. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

  • The flow is much improved. I know what you mean about the problems of sourcing getting in the way: the joining words which are fine in original research are often extremely inappropriate here. That aside, I expected "Decorated" was the standard, but I figured I'd better check with you either way, and I certainly understand the problems of balance caused by a necessary reliance on the sources: I think the changes you made do more than enough to redress the balance, though, so it is all good now. :) Anyway, I'm more than happy to pass the article. It seems easily enough to qualify for GA. - Bilby (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Pictures

edit

I've added another sunnier external view -- feel free to delete if you feel it doesn't add anything. Where did you get the view direction for the infobox image from? I might be wrong, but it looks to me like it's taken from Churchyardside near Barclays, which would be from the north west. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Parson's Nose

edit

I was directed here from the article on the "Parson's Nose" because there is evidently a carving on a pew in this church of a parson who (for some reason) upset the woodcarver who carved his likeness with the rump of a chicken for a nose. I was disappointed not to see that mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.28.204 (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lead image

edit

I don't feel this is an improvement. I'd prefer almost any of the others in the body. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply