Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St Melangell's Church/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 June 2024 [1].

St Melangell's Church

edit
Nominator(s): ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Melangell's Church, built over Bronze Age sacred ground, housed a prominent shrine in medieval Wales. The titular Melangell, patron saint of hares, founded a monastery in the area in the 7th or 8th century, and the current church was built during the Norman period. After a period of decline during and after the Reformation, renewed interest in the 19th and 20th centuries resulted in the reconstruction of the shrine and extensive scholarly analysis of the site; an entire journal volume dedicated to fresh archaeological discoveries was produced in 1994. This article was a stub marred by a giant blockquote and some very 2009-style references when I found it, but it was a diamond in the rough. I've been working on this on-and-off for around 6 months, and exhausted every scholarly source I could possibly find on this topic. Since this is my first FA nomination, I recently sent it to peer review to iron it out and put the finishing touches on the article. Thank you! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PMC

edit

Putting myself down for this. Usually I get to FAC comments within a week, if I don't, feel free to throw popcorn at me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead & Location
  • Is Melangell pronounced how it's spelled?
    • to my knowledge, the double L in Welsh is pronounced kind of breathy, almost like a th sound. however, i don't know any Welsh nor really any IPA to be able to add that here... -s
  • "commemorate the traditional grave" - "traditional grave" in this context is ever so slightly unclear to the layman. That being said I'm trying to figure out a way to word it without spending like an hour explaining and I'm coming up short, so this may just be intractable (the phrasing "reputed grave" later is maybe better, at least for the lead)
    • i switched "reputed" and "traditional" so that it's hopefully a little more upfront. -s
      • Hmm. It's not my favorite but as I said I think it may be intractable, so I won't fuss.
  • Sentences 2 3 and 4 all start "The church" or "The current church", any way to jiggle it around a little? "The building" maybe?
    • sentence 4 switched to "building" as it's talking about renovation, but i think switching the wording of 2 & 3 might create too much ambiguity -s
  • I might swap the order of the last two sentences. Right now you go from talking about the building to the archaeology of the area and then back to the building
    • good catch, done -s
  • "dismantled again, and restored" channeling the power of Sammi Brie tells me this doesn't need a comma
    • trimmed -s
  • "now privately owned" be careful with "now" phrasing; per MOS:NOW they are liable to become outdated. {{As of}} might be better
    • i'm not terribly happy with this either, as well, it's cited to an article from 1994. after trawling around on google maps going "yeah that looks like private land", i'm pretty confident it's still up-to-date. i also worry that "As of 1994," would look a lot goofier than it actually being outdated... not sure what a better solution would be. -s
      • I think the "as of 1994" is better, since it's more specific
        • done -s
  • "Glebe" not being a common word, could it be footnoted or possibly contextualized in-text, so the reader doesn't have to click through?
    • added a smidgeon of context -s
History
  • "oldest surviving Romanesque shrine in Britain or in northern Europe as a whole" - why the "or"? Is it because the northern Europe claim is uncertain?
    • i've actually got 2 citations saying it's the oldest in northern Europe now that i'm looking at this again, and if it's the oldest in northern Europe then by definition it's the oldest in Britain. i've just been bold and gone with the northern Europe claim. -s
  • I might split para 1 under "Medieval period" at " Pennant Melangell was probably founded"
    • done -s
  • "Under Norman rule" I know it's in the footnote, but I might put a reference to the time period in the text
    • added -s
  • Para 3 under Medieval period feels a little jumbled, chronologically. We have the Normans, then the 12th c. stone church, then we're going backwards to a possible 11th c. timber church, then back to the 12th c. shrine. I might order it something like "Norman whatever, possible timber church but no definitive evidence, 12th c. church & shrine"
    • good point - i've switched it around a little -s
  • Also, if there's no definitive evidence, what is the evidence for the timber church?
    • the source doesn't give any specifics - postholes (the kind of evidence one would look for) were found during excavation, but not explicitly connected to a timber church being at the site. -s
      • I would mention that, as currently it's unclear. maybe something like "postholes at the site suggest that there may have been a timber church..."
        • the issue is that the posthole thing specifically would be SYNTH - however, through some advanced techniques (searching "timber" in the journal) i've finally found & added the specific detail that the author is using as evidence. it's one sentence frustratingly split over three pages with an illustration cutting through, which is why i missed it previously. -s
  • I quite like that little watercolor, nice find
    • me too! Ingleby's illustrations are lovely -s
  • "possibly dismantling the rood screen" if the "current rood screen" still exists, what's this?
    • it was maybe dismantled, presumably reused elsewhere, and later reconstructed. this whole section of Pennant's history is pretty foggy though. if it was dismantled, then the parts of it would have been used to create other features in the church, and it would have been reconstructed at some point. for specificity, i've added "the loft of" the rood screen as it's closer to what's speculated about in the source. -s
  • in para 2 under "restoration efforts", you have "restoration work" in two successive sentences
    • trimmed -s
  • The lead of the article mentions the "cancer ministry", which leads me to think it'd be hugely important in the body, but it only merits half a sentence here. Is there any more to be said about it?
    • it was a request from Gerda; the cancer ministry is also mentioned in the "modern pilgrimage" section as a reason people visit the shrine. -s
      • I guess, but I still wonder if there's any more to be said about the ministry in the body.
        • there really isn't as far as i know - i wouldn't oppose removing it -s
  • Also, the phrasing "a Cancer Help Centre" makes it sound like an official thing readers would be familiar with. What is it? Can we footnote it?
    • this is also something UC asked about; in the source it's capitalized, and i'm not really sure why. i've just taken the liberty of putting it in lowercase because clearly it's giving a weird impression -s
  • What is meant by "shrine guardian"? Is it separate from the parish priest, if there still is one? Who's doing the appointing?
    • currently, the shrine guardian is the same person as the parish priest (now that women can be priests in the Churches of England & Wales), but i get the sense that previously it was a position held by women who took leadership of the church's ministries but were outside of the clergy structure. i added a short extra bit of context for the position -s
  • "In modern times" same issue as the "now" thing; better to be specific
    • switched to "in the 21st century" as that's what the studies mentioned cover -s
  • It only occurred to me now, but maybe we should link pilgrim somewhere
    • linked in the leade & the first mention in the body -s
  • This is a nitpick, but I would move the prayer card image up to the first paragraph, it just looks a bit goofy hanging down there
    • moved -s
Archaeological excavations & Shrine
  • First three sentences here all have variations on the "cell-y-bedd was excavated" or "Excavations in the cell-y-bedd". Can this be written around? You could maybe replace that last one with "These excavations revealed", which at least gets rid of one repetition of "cell-y-bedd"
    • one issue with switching the third sentence is that the entire paragraph is about specifically the cell-y-bedd, and it would become somewhat ambiguous, but yeah i'm not thrilled about the repetition. -s
      • At the very least could you try to write around the repetition of "excavation"?
        • i've gone straight ahead and reworked it a little bit - i added some more details about the 1958 excavation
  • "several layers of medieval flooring, within the" rm comma
    • done -s
  • If there's anything more about the filming of that movie, that might be worth putting in the actual history section
    • the source doesn't mention the name of the movie or really anything else about it other than it ruining the soil, so i don't have any leads about this. -s
      • If it ain't there, it ain't there
  • Not much of note under the Shrine section except - how are willows and half-pears connected to Ireland? (and what is a half pear?)
    • no idea what a half pear is, but i've clarified the sentence -s
Architecture
  • "waterworn pebbles" meaning that they were worn by water before construction? (Maybe this is a technical term I'm unfamiliar with?)
    • i'm actually not entirely sure whether they were already worn or centuries of being on the exterior of a church made them weathered; the source doesn't really clarify -s
  • In the lead, you hedge with "reputed grave"/"traditional grave", implying that the existence of the grave isn't certain. In the body you phrase it as "It was possibly built over Melangell's grave" and go on to say "A stone slab marks the site of the titular grave", both of which are a lot less hedgey and a lot more certain about the existence of the grave.
    • part of the thing here is that it is equally likely that she was never buried under there as it is that she was. her relics were probably displayed at the original 12th-century shrine, and the in-ground stone settings of the grave are very very old. above you suggested "reputed" as clearer to the uninformed reader, which i agree with, although i think "traditional" is more precise in this case, because regardless of whether she was ever buried precisely under that spot, it's been mostly uncritically venerated as her grave since at least the 12th century. i've decided to switch "titular" to "traditional" as slightly less certain but still accurate wording. -s
      • I think that switch works, but I still feel like the phrasing of "It was possibly built over Melangell's grave" shifts the uncertainty from "is there a grave?" to "the grave exists, but it may not quite be where the cell-y-bedd is". How do you feel about "It is traditionally believed to have been built over Melangell's grave"? (You'd have to tweak "traditional grave" in the next sentence, but that's not so hard - "putative grave" would work. Actually that phrasing might work well for the lead too since it literally means "commonly accepted or supposed")
        • works for me! -s
  • In para 2 under Cell-y-bedd, you're jumping around a bit, going from the demolition in 1989 to the original construction in 1751. I would just start with that, finish describing it, then say it was demo'd and move into describing the modern one
    • good catch, switched (& switched two sentences in the above para for the same reason) -s
  • I love the whale rib. Picturing a bunch of 15th century fisherman like "Yeah idk man stick it in the church, it's cool, make a harp out of it"
    • it's very whimsical - bone harps seem to be a motif in British folklore as well; one of my favorite folk songs features a haunted harp made of a woman's breastbone!
      • :O D&D campaign inspo
  • "the church also contains" idk if you need the also here; you definitely don't need the comma after paintings
    • trimmed -s
  • This may be because my caffeine is wearing off, but you assert that the church contains a number of wall paintings, then describe a) traces b) obliterated inscriptions/coats-of-arms c) one surviving reredos and d) gothic stencils. Only one of those things seems to be what most people would call a painting. Also, "contains" in the present tense implies that those things are extant, but two of the four things you mention are toast. I think this needs rephrased.
    • good point. i think the confusion arose from the fact that the source says "[the] church contains traces of painting from every major phase of the church's existence" - indeed it contains a lot of painting, but i must have mis-summarized it at some point. i've reworded it slightly to give a more accurate sense -s
      • "The church has decorative wall painting dating from the medieval period to the Victorian era (1837–1901)." I'm not sure works either; the present tense implies that the Church still has all those paintings, but it doesn't. Maybe something more radical, something like "The church has had various paintings and wall decorations throughout its history, not all of which have survived. The earliest known are traces of floral and geometric patterns which date to the medieval period"
        • yeah i like that better, done -s
  • I'm assuming the gothic stencils are what's meant by the Victorian wall paintings?
    • yes, per above -s
  • This is 100% a personal aesthetic preference so feel free to disregard it, but I think the rood sketch would be better placed above or below the paragraphs, not between them
    • agreed & moved sorry Gerda -s
  • I don't love para 1 under effigies.
    • It feels too close to the source for comfort; swapping the order of knife-sharpening and cutting of initials isn't quite sufficient, the structure is still very clearly similar.
    • (The source also says they were later moved from the west wall to the chancel, but the article doesn't).
    • I would suggest revising the section along the lines of "the chancel contains effigies, one male and one female. dated to the 14th c., but original location unknown. male effigy in the churchyard until 1876, female location unknown, moved to west wall. moved to chancel in XXXX"
      • good call & thanks for doing the restructuring work for me haha. i've re-worked this section a bit -s
        • If I'm good at anything, I'm good at structure, ngl. Your version looks good.
  • As I read it, only the male has initial-cutting damage, the female has knife sharpening damage (and is "broken in two parts" which also isn't mentioned? seems significant)
    • fixed & added -s
Churchyard
  • Why is the image of the churchyard dangling from the bottom of the effigies section?
    • good question. moved -s
  • "Antur Tanat Cain" who's this?
    • i actually don't know and the source doesn't give any context (presumably this was obvious to Welsh historians & archaeologists in the 1990s, but not to me). my only lead is that google brings up some kind of cultural charity founded in 1980, which may be what's referred to here. i've just removed it, as i don't think it's super pertinent information; this survey isn't even publicly available. -s
  • slightly repetitive - "recorded the gravestones" followed by "Records were made for each gravestone"
    • rephrased -s
  • "Welsh harpist..." when?
    • added -s
  • "said to be the last to perform in an interlude at Pennant" also when?
    • added (no date is given for his actual performance, i just know when he lived) -s
Other
  • Footnotes B D and E need citations
    • done -s

That's what I got, take your time responding. All suggestions are open to discussion and I'm perfectly open to you not changing something if you have good reason. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I responded to a few things above. Anything I didn't respond to, assume is fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i've responded to your responses! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And my response to your response to my responses is that I support this article on prose :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

edit

What a lovely article, and hats off for your work on it. On first glance, it looks well polished indeed. A few comments:

  • I don't find the OSM map particularly helpful, since its scale only really shows that the church is in the middle of nowhere -- on my small-ish screen, there's no named or particularly recognisable features depicted. Suggest swapping for a static map of Wales.
    • agreed & done - it was there when i found the article, and i didn't think to swap it out! -s
  • between 1987–1994: better as between 1987 and 1994 (you'd use the dash when saying e.g. "in 1998–1999")
    • done -s
  • reconstructed for the first time in 1958: do we need for the first time here? Even given the following sentence on subsequent reconstruction, I think it's clear enough.
    • done -s
  • A few terms in the lead which you might consider linking: apse, Rood screen, hermit, abbess, nave, liturgy.
    • done -s
  • rectoral and vicarial glebe farmland: this could be made clearer for non-experts: suggest "Church-owned farmland held by the church's rectors and vicars as a glebe" or similar. Can we put even approximate dates on "now" (since when?) and "historically" (in 1980, 1890, or 1380?)
    • done & done -s
  • more isolated than many other popular pilgrimage churches: we haven't actually shown, yet, that it is a popular pilgrimage church.
    • hmm... good point. i'm not sure how to go about that, as adding that it's a popular pilgrimage destination would be kind of off-topic for the "location and surroundings" section, but i do think its isolation is relevant to this section. -s
  • the old village surrounding the church: again, any chance of being more precise on "old"?
    • the source cited gives it as medieval but no more detail, so i've just added that. i've really not been able to find much information about the village itself - when it was abandoned, etc. -s
  • St Monacella's Bed: just to clarify -- in English?
    • as far as i'm aware, yes - her name is almost never rendered as "Monacella" in Welsh from what i've read. perhaps it was scratched by a Romantically-minded English visitor... -sm
  • We should translate Ffynnon Cwm Ewyn and Ffynnon Iewyn ('Ewyn's Valley Well' or 'Iewyn's Well'), as we have for other Welsh names. Any idea who Ewyn/Iewyn was?
    • it wasn't translated in the source, and i don't know Welsh, so i didn't add a translation, but WP:OR says that translation is not original research, so i've added yours to it. no idea who Ewyn/Iewyn is - an 1894 (if i recall correctly) source speculates that the well is of pre-Christian origin, but i deleted that when i was purging some stuff i'm less confident about - i could add it back if the context is needed. -s
      • I wouldn't include those translations unless the sources do (and they can't get much more specialised than "Place-names and Field-names of Pennant Melangell""!), as Ewyn/Iewyn may not be a personal name. Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru defines "ewyn" as foam, spume, froth; often fig. to denote whiteness, purity, frailty..., so cwm ewyn could be 'valley of foam' or something similar. Ham II (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems that Nant Ewyn ('brook of foam') is a tributary of the River Tanat which joins the river at Pennant Melangell (pen nant is probably 'head/end of [the] brook'), and the valley of that brook is Cwm Nantewyn; Cwm Ewyn must be another form of Cwm Nantewyn. Ham II (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • thanks for clarifying - i've removed them since you make a good point. the origin of the name of this well is pretty ambiguous it seems ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Romanesque" is linked in the lead but not the body. So is Yew tree, at least not on first mention (it is linked much later).
    • fixed -s
  • late medieval farmstead: hyphenate as a compound modifier. Also, later, Bronze Age burial mound and early medieval stone slab and a few others. Technically, Middle Bronze Age burial activity needs two hyphens.
    • thanks for pointing it out; fixed -s
  • centuries before the arrival of Christianity in Wales.: when was that?
    • the sentence was kind of awkward and superfluous anyways, so i just removed it -s
  • As we've had "Saint Monacella" a bit further up, with the bed, I think that's the place to explain that Melangell and Monacella are the same person.
    • done via efn -s
  • praying with the hare safely under her hem: I'd put a comma after hare so it doesn't sound like he was also getting in on the act.
    • i feel like that makes the sentence too disjointed - i switched "safely" to "safe" which might make it seem smoother. -s
  • in the 11th century, shortly after the conquest of England (note 12): seems odd not to be precise that the conquest of England started in 1066, which is after all most of the way through the C11th.
    • reworded -s
  • Saints' cults were revived and Normanised: what doesNormanised mean, in this context?
    • unfortunately there is no separate article for Normanization (yet ;]) but similar to the Romanization of indigenous religions of the Roman Empire, it entailed changing of deities' names (or saints in this case), introducing traditions of the conquerors, building new temples/churches, etc. the source cited doesn't give a ton of detail on this process specific to Pennant Melangell, but i've added an efn with some extra context - i'm not super happy about having two efns so close together, but i feel that the paragraph would be kind of bloated if they were in the text, if that makes sense. -s
  • Before the construction of the church, no definitive evidence exists for a church existing at the site: as written, this is blindingly obvious, though I suspect it's not quite what is meant. Suggest adding "current church".
    • hahaha good point. fixed -s
  • Do we know why it has been suggested that a timber church may have existed? These things are not invisible, archaeologically, and given its extensive investigation you'd suspect something like postholes to have clued the investigators in.
    • several postholes were indeed identified, but i think it'd be a bit SYNTHy to connect that to speculation of a wooden church when the source doesn't do that directly. still, i've added a little bit. -s
  • 2 marks, slightly below average for the Diocese of St Asaph.: can we do any more to contextualise 2 marks (was that a lot?) Might be worth clarifying at this stage that the church is/was in the Diocese of St Asaph; we do in the following sentence, at the moment.
    • 2 marks doesn't really mean anything to me and i'm not sure how i'd even convert that currency, so i've just removed it. as for the diocese, i think it's clear as is and i'm not sure how to reword it.
  • Melangell's cult remained popular until the Reformation: I would attempt to put a date on the Reformation, if we can.
    • that would require a bit of a deep dive into the Reformation in Wales (something that surprisingly doesn't have an article) - i think the wikilink & immediate dating of 1535 should be sufficient for the reader, hopefully.
      • As we've phrased it (Melangell's cult remained popular until the Reformation; in 1535 the income from offerings at the shrine was comparable to that of other major cult centres in Wales), we're saying that 1535 is before the Reformation, which would certainly push the date of the latter back quite substantially from where most people would put it either in a European or an English context (that's the year that More and Fisher were executed). I'm willing to believe that it took a while for its effects to be felt in Wales, but we need to say so if that's the case. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • i've already gone and grabbed another source for a single bit of requested context (about the Norman conquest) before, so i may as well do the same again here to get a more specific timeline for the Reformation in Wales - who knows, i may even write that whole article at some point ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          also, a little bit of clarification - the Act of Union happened in 1536, which is when Wales was made formally part of the Kingdom of England, so 1535 was indeed the eve of the Reformation in Wales. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          alright, found a book that happens to mention Henry VIII sending his men to reform the Diocese of St Asaph in 1535! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • due to the suppression of saints' cults and pilgrimage: similarly, it would be good, if we can, to say who did this and when. Is this a Cromwellian thing, or more to do with Edward and Elizabeth?
    • the source more or less says exactly what the article says; the history of Pennant Melangell in this period is extremely foggy, and i don't think we could really get more specific about who and when as it relates to this church specifically. -s
      • nevermind - i've found a bit that i skipped over prior -s
  • The massive religious reforms: can we say anything about these, or give a link to an article with some more information?
    • i'd think the wikilink to English Reformation in the paragraph would be sufficient for context, as it would kind of WP:COATRACK the section to get into the whole ordeal. i did remove "massive" as it's a bit intense. -s
      • I think it would still be wise to add something very rough: in particular, that all three monarchs pushed English religion in a Protestant direction, including (among other things) suppressing the worship of saints and destroying much church decoration. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        However, by the 1660s the value of the Pennant church once again sunk to below average for the diocese due to the suppression of saints' cults and pilgrimage. The religious reforms under the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I brought major changes to the fabric of the church; the shrine was probably dismantled at this time and the grave chapel blocked off. i would hope this would be enough context? this is what it already says. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah -- if those are all intended to be the same thing, a bit of reordering might solve the issue. As framed, those religious reforms are really presented as belonging to the 1660s or near enough: they're not obviously connected to those three monarchs who ruled nowhere near the 1660s. However, we could do something like

        The religious reforms under the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I, which suppressed pilgrimage and the cult of saints, brought major changes to the fabric of the church. The shrine was probably dismantled at this time and the grave chapel blocked off. By the 1660s, the value of the Pennant church had once again sunk to below average for the diocese.

        UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        yeah i like that ordering better (couldn't quite put my finger on what was bugging me about that paragraph) - thanks! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as well: I would cut this: as well as what?
    • done -s
  • the shrine was likely dismantled at this time: wiser editors than me have picked out "likely" in this context as an Americanism; "probably" might be more BrE. See also later it likely would have been threatened and which is likely much older
    • had no idea that was an Americanism - you've caught me! holy moly i use it a lot in this article. done -s
  • Picture captions that are not complete sentences (like A 1795 watercolour of St Melangell's Church by John Ingleby, showing the square cell-y-bedd at the east end should not end in a full stop.
    • fixed -s
  • The walls were plastered and seating was introduced into the church at some point from the late 16th century.: any reason not to put this in chronological order, before the C17th material that precedes it? By "from", do we mean "after", or "in the late C16th or later"? "From", to me, implies that it was a long process that started but didn't finish in the C16th.
    • it was at an unknown point in the late 16th century or afterwards, and it's not entirely chronological because the preceding bit is also quite chronologically uncertain - the shrine was dismantled at an unknown date at some point in that period, in the 16th or 17th century. -s
  • The current church tower was entirely built: I'm not sure we need entirely here. Similarly, later, in the apse was entirely rebuilt.
    • removed -s
  • Ralegh Radford might do with an introduction here: most readers, I think, will be expecting him to have been an architect.
    • done -s
  • Meifod parish priest Paul Davies' wife recovered from cancer: this is clunky. Suggest "Paul Davies, the parish priest of Meifod, bought a cottage near the church with his wife, following her recovery from cancer"
    • done -s
  • Cancer Help Centre: why the capitals?
    • it's capitalized in the source, not sure why -s
  • Archbishop Alwyn Rice Jones: archbishop of where? Suggest "Alwyn Rice Jones, the Archbishop of Wales. Might also be useful to note that he was simultaneously Bishop of St. Asaph.
    • done -s
  • The isolated, scenic location of the church was also a notable factor in attracting visitors, and played an important role: consider cutting notable and important as WP:PUFFERY.
    • done -s
  • visitors to the shrine come from diverse religious backgrounds: can we be more specific here? Are we saying that lots of non-Christians left prayers?
    • added some details -s
  • the remains of the medieval apse wall footings, which was semicircular: not quite grammatical here: suggest the footings of the medieval apse wall, which was...
    • good point; fixed -s
  • Initials, like R.B. Heaton, are usually followed by spaces: R. B. Heaton. British English would prefer the architect.
    • fixed -s
  • many of which are significantly weathered: strictly, significantly should mean that this signifies something: if we just mean "severely", "heavily" or "very", we should say that.
    • TIL; fixed -s
  • It is not known what the shrine originally looked like ... The steep gable design of Melangell's shrine: we seem to have contradicted ourselves here.
    • clarified -s
  • such as the 'willow' and 'half-pear': MOS:' disapproves of scare-quotes like this: the most MoS-aligned thing to do would be to use double quotes, or something like those known as "willow" and "half-pear".
    • went with regular double quotes -s
  • There's a bit of overlap at the moment between the "History" and the "Architecture" section; in many places we seem to be telling the story of demolitions, renovations and restorations twice. I'd suggest having a think about the best way to order and relate this information, and trying to do it only once.
    • i'll work on streamlining some of the repetition here - i can't really think of any way to reorganize the article that wouldn't be pretty clunky and incongruous with other church articles, so i'll just reword some stuff in the architecture section & move a couple sentences around; shouldn't take too long. -s
  • Strictly, Asen y gawres is the Giant's rib.
    • done -s (i appreciate your knowledge of Welsh saving me here haha)
      • Alas, the source hasn't got this right, but Asen y gawres actually translates as 'the giantess's rib'. (Y cawr = 'the giant'; y gawres = 'the giantess'. Note how Barclodiad y Gawres is translated.) This is a source that gets it correct. Ham II (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        thanks for that source - i've gone and changed it now ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good eye -- I spotted the one mistake but not the other! UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • large whale rib of uncertain purpose and origin: Suggest reworking slightly: its origin is, at least on one level, pretty obvious.
    • switched "origin" for "provenance" as more precise -s
  • I'd give a date for the Victorian era.
    • i don't think that's entirely necessary, as the wikilink gives you the dates of the Victorian era in the first sentence -s
      • While the precise application of MOS:NOFORCELINK has been debated, the general principle is that we shouldn't require readers to go to a linked page to get a piece of information that's important to understand this article. There's always a balance to be struck between wordiness and comprehensibility, but I can't really see that adding a date pushes us anywhere close to the wrong side of that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        done ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was painted over with a Hanoverian coat of arms in the 18th century, and then plastered over.: as written, it sounds like it was plastered over as soon as the paint dried.
    • switched to "later" -s
  • An 1886 copy on wood was located on the altar: was located -- what happened to it, do we know?
    • unfortunately the source doesn't say -s
  • Welsh priest John Parker: I'd put a date on him. BrE would prefer The Welsh priest. We need a more subjective word than "noted" for a statement of opinion: simply "wrote"?
    • done -s
  • Iorwerth Drwyndwn.: introduce him.
    • done -s
  • Looking here, p. 321, it sounds like there's an alternative theory that the effigy is another Iorweth, possibly (or alternatively) a member of the Rhirid Flaidd family. The wolf connection would certainly be worth a note, I think. The same source has another suggestion for the female effigy.
    • Archaeologia Cambrensis is truly a never-ending source for this topic, as somehow i never found this bit of detail. however, i've never seen this claim anywhere else, and there's no author listed (not uncommon for 19th-century scholarship, but not ideal for citations) - i'll keep the tab open, but hold off on adding it just yet -s
      • I've been thinking on this a bit: if we've cited AC elsewhere, we've established that we consider it a reliable source, and so we can't really (under WP:DUEWEIGHT) say that we're going to ignore something published there simply because it isn't replicated elsewhere. If someone else had actually taken on that claim and demonstrated that it was false, that would be another matter, but at the moment there's a danger of trying to have our cake and eat it at the same time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        that's a good point; my issue here is that i use two 19th century sources (Pennant & Parker), and both are cited with attribution (except for the very straightforward description of the rood screen by Parker) since the context of when and by whom they were written is important. how would i attribute this little bit of the "miscellaneous notes" section? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't need to use every bit of the citation template: something like "Mystery of Purple Custard Explosion", The New York Times, April 15, 1974, p. 1 is absolutely fine. Sometimes it is possible to find out the author of an unattributed source: in older periodicals or edited volumes, for example, it was usual practice only to attribute the author when it wasn't the editor, so I'd pull forward to the front matter and see if the editor is named: you can then either cite it as "J. Jones (ed.)" (using |editor=) or more boldly with Jones as the author. It would equally be fine, in the text, to say that In 18whatever, a contributor to the archaeological journal AC suggested that..." UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        fair enough o7 i'll get to work on that! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        added ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in which case the effigy would be a cult figure of Melangell: I think we need a probably here: it would be entirely possible for a human being to be depicted with the iconography of a saint.
    • done -s
  • contemporary to the building of the gate: contemporary with.
    • fixed -s
  • What's the logic as to which sources are included in the bibliography, and which are not?
    • sources which are used multiple times are put in the bibliography & referenced via sfns; everything only used once is just given a full citation in ref tags -s
  • Reference formatting is inconsistent as to title or sentence case. I'm also not sure I can immediately work out the ordering system in the bibliography: by date isn't wrong (though it is highly unusual), but how come Heaton and Britnell 1994 comes before Ridgway 1994, but Britnell and Watson 1994 comes after Parkinson 1994? Initials down here also need spacing.
    • chronologically is my personal preference for when there's a large range of time between sources, as in this case. as i'm sure you've noticed, a giant chunk of the sourcing comes from a single volume of Montgomeryshire Collections in 1994 - i've sorted the articles by how they are ordered in the volume originally, but i can order that chunk alphabetically if it's preferred. initial spacing done -s
      • done with the title v sentence case - i just switched them all to title case
  • Sources, in general, should have identifiers: usually that's an ISBN/OCLC/OL number for books and an ISSN for journals.
    • i'll dig into this & add them
  • Historia Divinae Monacellae should be italicised in the source title.
    • done -s

Over to you: let me know if anything is unclear, or if I've got the wrong end of any of these sticks. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wow I was not expecting such a nice review so quickly! i'll try to get all of this addressed today and tomorrow. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist i've responded to everything! ball is back in your court (it might be easier to respond to my responses down here, so it's easier to follow) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re: identifiers - i do not think Montgomeryshire Collections has an ISSN. it seems to be more or less exclusively digitized by the National Library of Wales, which has hdl identifiers for each volume, but that's it. Archaeologia Cambrensis, however, does have an ISSN but i can't find DOIs for articles from either. it's an unusual system, but the best i've got. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re: repetition between the "architecture" and "history" sections, i'm really not seeing anything that would bother me as a reader - you need a little bit of context to properly describe the architecture, and you need to describe the various renovations, excavations, etc in the history section. there is a bit of repetition, but it's about as minimal as i could get without having disjointed and confusing prose. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few things that I notice:
  • We give what was found under the apse in the architecture section, but not the archaeology section: this is backwards, if anything.
  • We give the date (1989) for the rebuilding of the cell-y-bedd in the architecture section, but not the history section (we only imply that it was between the 1980s and 1992)
  • File:Shrine of St. Monacella in Pennant Melangel Church, 1795.jpg -- a very nit-picky thing, but any chance of rotating this image slightly so that it's straight? The left edge is quite noticeably higher than the right.
UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • good point, moved
  • the reason for this is that those two parts are cited to different sources and were written in different phases - that said, i'll continue to tweak this a bit.
  • i wouldn't know the best way to do that, to be honest!
... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: that's all I've got. A lovely article and such a great improvement from where you found it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Generalissima

edit

Put me down for a source review! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lede adheres to LEADCITE. I don't see any things that would need cites, and I don't see anything that isn't discussed within the body. The only cites within the lede are two for a footnote, which is appropriate here.
  • Location and surroundings is fully cited.
  • History is fully cited.
  • Archaeological excavations is fully cited.
  • Shrine is fully cited.
  • Architecture is fully cited.
  • Churchyard is fully cited.
  • The SFNs are correctly and consistently formatted. There are a couple things with pages that don't have SFNs (namely, Morton 2009, Hurlock 2018, Gibson 2002, Williams 1993, Walker 1990, Jones 1954, and Edwards 2002). I would suggest converting these to SFNs for consistency's sake. Websites or other forms of pageless sources are fine to keep as longform citations.
  • Bibliography is consistently formatted. Everything has HDLs and ISSNs where appropriate. Author names are linked when possible. Good to go here.
  • As this is your first FA nomination, I will do a spotcheck. This might take a hot second though, so stand by. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for doing the source review! sfn conversions done, + Malim 2018, Crossley & Ridgway 1947, and Archaeologia Cambrensis 1877. i've also removed non-functioning archive links & unnecessary parameters, and added a couple of ID numbers that i had missed previously. i think it looks much cleaner now! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh heck yes, that looks perfect! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot to comment on this, but all of the sources are looking very nice. Mainly to Welsh history and religion journals, which is obviously appropriate here. There's a few 19th century sources, but they're used sparingly and almost always alongside a more modern source. Well done on that front.

Spot Check

  • Brittnell, 1994a: "Boundaries of the Parish of Pennant Melangell"
    • 6: Checks out, mentions Llangynog.
    • 7: Indeed.
    • 38: Confirms the dates here.
  • Pryce, 1994.
    • 11: Yep, gives the name origin.
    • 18: Summarizes the story of Melangell. Works good enough for me!
  • Evans, 1994.
    • 12: Checks out. Side note: There's space to include that gorgeous 1870s sketch of the church, right? I think that'd go good in the "restoration efforts" section, as its contemporary to the early restoration work.
      • i'd absolutely love to - however, i can't find a death date (nor really any information) for the artist. figured it out - added! -s
        • 'Support on image review of this one specific image, since it's newly added, lol. Licensing checks out and it has alt-text. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 13: Checks out as well, footnote in the article explains it nicely.
  • Keulemans & Burton 2006
    • 15: Indeed talks about pre-Christian uses of the site. Some of this context is however on page 105, so I'd change the cite to 105–106.
    • 40: Checks out.
    • 44: Checks out.
    • 45: Checks out, though you could merge this with the previous cite by changing the page numbers to "103–104, 106–107"
  • Parker, 1848
    • 77: Checks out.
    • 78: Quote checks out.
    • 79: This can be merged with the previous cite by switching it to 225–227; you only need to cite quotes at the end of the sentence, but it can be covering multiple quotes when doing that.
  • Britnell, 1994b
    • 16: Checks out, but I'd mention that tests indicated it was likely from the second half of the first millennium BCE, and that urn fragments were found. (Oh, I realize this is restated later, including by Gibson 2002. Might be good to bring just a little of that over here?)
    • 23: Yep. Briefly summarized on 94, and expanded on 70–72.
    • 37: Checks out.
    • 47: Checks out.
    • 48: Yep.
    • 50: Yep.
    • 51: Yep.
    • 52: Wow, yeah.
    • 53: Yep.
    • 54a: Yep.
    • 54b: Yep.
    • 55: Yep.
    • 56: Yep.
    • 57: Yep.
    • 58a: Yep.
    • 58b: Yep.
    • 65: Yep.
    • 66: Yep.
    • 88a: Yep.
    • 88b: Yep.
    • 89: Yes.
    • 90: Yea.
    • 91: Mhm.
    • 94: Checks out.
    • 98: Checks out.
    • 100a: Checks out - getting a pattern yet?
    • 100b: Also checks out.
  • That last one was a slog to get through, apologize for the delay. I made some minor formatting suggestions, but I wouldn't consider them obligatory, so I will say Support on both source review and spot check. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i like your suggestions, and have done all of them! thanks for the source review :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:St._Monacella,_or,_Pennant_Melangel_Church,_1795.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:John_Parker_Pennant_Melangell_rood_screen_drawing.png needs a US tag
  • File:Pennant_Melangell_Lychgate_1893.png needs a US tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    done
    this catalogue listing says it was made to be published in Thomas Pennant's Tours in Wales series, although i'm not sure of an exact date of publishing vs creation.
    done
    done
    thanks for the swift review! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 06:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

edit

Thank you for a lovely article! I'll comment as a read, and return to the lead after the whole thing. Just for now: you may want to reduce repetitions of the words "church" and "shrine". Sometimes "it" would be not ambiguous, I think.

The infobox is fine. I'd like a larger image, but my way of cheating (St. Martin, Idstein) is perhaps not compatible with FA ambitions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval

  • "no definitive evidence exists for a church existing at the site", - less repetition perhaps?
    • reworded slightly -s
  • is there a link for Valuation of Churches for someone unfamiliar? - value in which respect?
    • the Valuation of Norwich unfortunately does not have an article to link, but i added the word "property" to give the correct sense - it was a recording of all the property values for tax purposes. -s
  • I wonder if you can first describe the changes to the building in the 15th century, and then the higher value?
    • there's not a ton more information about the renovations in the 15th century, as the information we have is based on physical evidence, rather than records. -s
      I didn't mean more information, just the order. -GA

Restoration

  • too man "also" for my taste in the first para
    • trimmed -s
  • I read "transferred" as a move of location, but understand that it means just to which parish the building belongs, - correct?
    • correct -s
  • I'd move the pic of the shine in the chancel to where that is mentioned.
    • that section of the article is a bit cramped for images, and the shrine being in the chancel is relevant to the paragraph where it talks about how it was moved there -s
      I tried, revert if you don't like -GA

Read until there, more to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archeoloical ...

Images

Back to the lead

  • I'm mostly happy but would appreciate a hint at how close the building was to demolition, the cancer-retreat, and the pilgrimage beyond veneration of a particular person.
    • added a little bit -s

Again, thank you for an interesting article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt replied to everything - let me know what you think! and thank you for your review :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the changes. I wonder if in History, you could mention the key things in chronological order, but order of importance is also fine. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i assume you meant the initial paragraph of the history section, in which case done! and thanks for the support! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pbritti

edit

I'll provide a review. It's British Christian history and church architecture. I feel somewhat competent in these subject areas, so let's see what I can add! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just realized this was Sawyer's work! Looking forward any responses to my comments! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The lead could do with a mention of the church's current denomination, the Church of Wales. I'd prefer this earlier than later in first paragraph. I don't think it's necessary to mention previous affiliations with the Catholic Church or Church of England in the lead.
    • good call - done -s
  • The church has a single nave and a square tower, and is built of multiple types of stone. On the east end is an apse, which contains Melangell's traditional grave. Consider leading with the statement on the stone construction to combine the building's arrangement without the brief aside on materials.
    • yeah i like that better - done -s
  • The churchyard contains thousands of graves, the majority unmarked, and several yew trees. Consider using em or en dashes rather than commas, as this looks like a list at first blush.
    • done -s

Location and surroundings:

  • As of 1994 should be followed by a comma, if memory serves.
  • Glebe is one of my favorite words. Thought I ought to mention that.
    • it's probably in my top 5 ecclesiastical terms, up there with "rood". -s
  • I feel like there's enough of a topical shift to start a new paragraph at Other historic sites nearby. This is up to you.
    • yeah that looks more even to me -s
  • At some unknown date, probably in the 19th century, the words "St Monacella's Bed" were carved into the stone. Maybe I'm not reading this well, but this feels like a bit of a non sequitur. Is this in reference to the aforementioned rock shelf?
    • it is referring to the rock shelf, but i'm not sure how to reword it. -s
  • Note B strikes me as important enough to warrant inclusion in the main body. Again, this is a subjective sentiment that you are welcome to ignore.
    • originally it was, after According to her hagiography, Melangell, but either PMC or UC suggested i move it to the section where the name "Monacella" is first mentioned. i think it would make the sentence kind of cluttered to put it into the prose. -s

Ok, the history section is much longer, so I'll add my comments on it separately. Looking good thus far! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reviewing this & glad to have another nerd about British church history on this article! i've responded to your comments so far. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent responses. Upon second glance, comments that you did not implement are acceptable as-is. More comments to follow. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following sections are smaller and, since I'm editing on my phone right now, will be reviewed before the titanic history section.

Shrine:

  • Can an approximate date be provided on first mention of the shrine in this section?
    • i opted to omit it in the first sentence because it's been dismantled and reconstructed so many times - the following sentence explains that it's a reconstruction of the 12th-century original. -s
  • Per MOS:DATECOMMA, In 1958 should be followed by a comma.
    • done -s
  • At the risk of redundancy, I would again mention that the shrine's components were moved to the chancel after they were dismantled.
    • agreed & added -s
  • Limewash is presently linked on second mention rather than the first mention. I would swap the two.
    • good catch; the earlier paragraph was added later, which is why i didn't notice it. -s

Architecture:

  • The square tower is of the 19th century, with a pyramidal roof topped by a short timber belfry. This sentence has the eloquence often found in British academic writing from the last century, but it could be shortened. Consider "The 19th-century square tower has a pyramidal roof topped by a short timber belfry."
    • i do love flowery writing... done -s
  • I would consider a new paragraph starting at The original cell-y-bedd. A citation would have to be appended at the end of the preceding sentence. This is discretionary.
    • done -s
  • I recommend mentioning that John Parker is also an artist, as this qualifies him to comment on the artistic quality of the building.
    • good point, done -s
  • John Parker is linked both on first and second mention. I think it's ok to only link him once.
    • done -s
  • Per MOS:GEOCOMMA, names of parishes like St Pabo, Llanbabo and St Iestyn, Llaniestyn should have a second comma after the name of the place.
    • done -s
  • Is the location of the split in the female effigy known from the sources? If so, I'd consider adding it.
    • in the images in the article, it's roughly in the lower-shin-ankle area, but not mentioned in the text (nor is the cause of the break). -s

Ok, that's all I have time for right now. I apologize for the piecemeal nature of my comments. Again, excellent work. I must also add that your prose is clear, ushering the reader through the article without tedious rereading. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

responded! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Sawyer! I've been a bit caught up on other areas of the project, including my own FAC. I can add additional comments either Monday or Tuesday. Which is preferable for you? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
either works for me, i'm not in a rush. tomorrow would probably be slightly preferable, as sooner = i can get everything done sooner. however, there's no pressure ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History:

  • If possible, an additional sentence of elaboration on the Bronze Age use of the site would be neat.
  • by the Celtic Christians of I'm inclined against a definite article here.

Seriously, the rest is very solid. I've reviewed your responses and accept that this article is suitable for support at this time. Congrats! You've earn this! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the part cited, there's honestly not that many conclusions drawn other than "there was a burial mound at the site in the Bronze Age", and elsewhere in my sources it's mostly granular archaeological details rather than analysis. unfortunately i'm not sure there's much more to write about the actual Bronze Age history
  • done
thanks so much for the review & support! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 06:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from TechnoSquirrel69

edit

I brought this up during the peer review, but why is "Pennant Melangell" bolded in the lead? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i re-bolded it because as much as this article is specifically about the church, the sources discuss the church and the surrounding settlement almost interchangeably, as they are inextricably tied together and you can't discuss one without discussing the other. indeed St Melangell's Church is often simply called "Pennant Melangell church" or "Pennant church" in sources. MOS:BOLDLEAD indicates that widely-known alternative names should be bolded, which while "Pennant Melangell" isn't quite that, i'd argue that it fits the spirit here and is helpful to readers. let me know if you strongly disagree or whatever though, haha ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's usual practice, when the article is also a redirect from a title that could conceivably (but probably won't) have its own page, to bold that redirect's title on first mention as if it were an alternative name. See for instance Murder of James Bulger, which bolds the names of the two killers and the victim, because that page is the main article for each of those people. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either of these rationales work for me as I don't mind it formatted either way; I was simply checking that the bold wasn't a mistake as I thought Sawyer had removed it during the PR. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sounds good, thanks! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:47, 5 June 2024 (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_article_candidates/St_Melangell%27s_Church/archive1&oldid=1228930791"