This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Latest comment: 8 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hi Rodw, Amandajm and any page watchers/stewards. I'm thinking of running this as TFA on 23 October - the 785th anniversary of its consecration. The article looks in okayish shape, but does show some signs of an ageing article, with some recent edits leaving a wp:Proseline feel in a couple of places and one or two unsupported statements in place. Does anyone feel like giving this a quick blast to polish away any cobwebs so it is suitable for the main page? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Leave it with me for a bit. You would not realise that this is one of the most significant wotks of architecture of the |Gothic period from its current state. Amandajm (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Please excuse my typos, pending durther eye surgery.
I have reversed the edits by Z1720 (talk). as having been made in igmorance of the subject they were editing, and under the impression that the many small galleries of pics were repetitious, I suppose.
The status of Wells Cathedral, architecturally, is that it is one of the most important and innovative Gothic buildings in the World. It breaks new ground. It sets the pattern for how the Gothic arch could be developed in a more advanced way than anything in France at the time. The architect totally 'got' the potential to which the pointed arch could be used.... and the next chap was even able to do it three-dimensionally.
I have looked through the pics and .... OK, maybe I have been too kind in not removing someones's extra pic of the St Andrew's cross arch ..... but removing them altogether , which was the way I found it... and reducing the main view of the most innovative nave in England to a thunbnail...... is going too far!
Maybe we do need only one misericord! But then again, the claim is made that they are one of the finest sets in Britain so reoresenting four distinctly different types might be justifiable, unless we produce a separate article rather than a subheading.
namely "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; ...." - well, these changes, which only affect the images, are "in response to the featured article process" - see section above. There have actually been two edits over 2 weeks or more, leaving the article more or less where it began. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Noting that 1e does not concern itself with how different versions of the article are, but the volume and speed of the edits in between them; also known as precisely the point I was bleeding making!SerialNumber5412912:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I initiated a copyedit of the article because I nominated it for WP:TFA for October 23. The scheduling co-ordinator for October, SchroCat, mentioned that the article needed a copyedit, and I agree. Much of what I removed was, in my opinion, promotional language, off-topic information that compared Wells Cathedral to other architecture, excess description, merging one-paragraph sections or uncited information. A large amount of images make the page hard to load for some readers and too much detail discourages people from reading the article. I encourage editors to read through the prose and decide what should be included in this article and how it can be improved. If editors think the article is FA quality as-is, I encourage them to bring it to WP:FAR so that the community can determine if this article still meets the featured article criteria. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
"in my opinion" being the crucial point here. As I said in the section above, I thought you had considerably overdone it in both areas, though some trimming would be justified. But it was better to revert the lot than leave it all. Most of what you removed was there when the article passed FAC in 2014 I think. The FAC (in which I did not participate) was long and detailed, and the reviewers did not share your concerns, one specifically praising the use of lots of images, and so on. I think this is not your normal area of editing, and it shows in remarks like "promotional language, off-topic information that compared Wells Cathedral to other architecture, excess description...". The "promotional language" bit is typical of the misuse of policy links I noted above. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I strongly disagree with the removals, although they were well intentioned (myself and Z1720 ⋅have worked a lot together in FAR over the recent past). I think there is confusion with architectural language and puffery. The language removed imo was descriptive using standard terms; on that basis I don't think a FAR is warranted, unless we invent a new speak for describing buildings. Ceoil (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply