Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed churches in Lancashire/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 Giants2008 03:07, 15 December 2012 [1].

Grade I listed churches in Lancashire

edit

Grade I listed churches in Lancashire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is the next in a series of lists, by county, of Grade I listed churches. It follows closely the format of three previous successful nominations, the last being Grade I listed churches in Merseyside. The text has been copyedited, and there is a linked article about every church in the list. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Lancashire is a county in North West England." that is a short sentence, can more be merged?
    • Yes, but I do not see any advantage to be gained. It is concise and precise, giving the non-UK reader a simple, exact definition. IMO to combine it with the next sentence (or part of it) would make it complex and possibly confusing. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is a complete list of Grade I listed churches and chapels in Lancashire as recorded in the National Heritage List for England." that hasn't been on FLs for some time now, I'd just removed that sentence.
    • I'm not sure that is correct. This sentence was used in Grade I listed churches in Merseyside, promoted only on 18 September 2012, and before that on the corresponding lists for Greater Manchester and Cheshire. As it stands, it shows that the list conforms to attribute 3 (comprehensiveness), and that its source is impeccably authoritative. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would merge so that there are only three paragraphs, instead of four, as some as shorteish
    • Not sure about this. Para 1 deals with the area covered by the county, para 2 with the listing criteria, para 3 with the history and architecture of the churches, and para 4 with economics and geology. The only short one is 4, and I do not see that sitting comfortably with 3 (but I am willing to be converted). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Buildings in England are given" were?
    • No "are". Listing is an ongoing process; buildings are continually being listed, delisted and regraded (see [2]). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "per cent" merge into one word
    • Wictionary gives "per cent" as an acceptable alternative, explaining that it is used mostly in the UK. My Chamber's English Dictionary gives "per cent", but no entry for "percent". --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mainly" to "generally"
    • Not at all sure about this; it does not seem to say what I mean it to say. What is the consensus on this? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:NUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4 metres, use 4 metres, which when you are editing the page, should have an " " in the middle of 4 and metres for that
    • I have found only two examples of this, both in the refs, which I have fixed (using {{space}} rather than " "). Have I missed any? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise, such as "some", etc. For example, "All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green."
  • I noticed that the alts to all images are missing periods at the end of them
  • Don't use a ; semi-colon, as it is an WP:ACCESS issues, use actual sub-section headers, or something else, although the first is appreciated.
  • I would use {{cite web}} or one of those cite templates for all references
    • Why? I have never understood why there are two systems, or what is the advantage of one over the other. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley 23:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the trouble you have taken over the review. As you see, I am not in full agreement with all your comments. I should welcome comments from other reviewers, and shall of course fit in with any consensus. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Lancashire is a county in North West England. In 1974 parts of the historical county of Lancashire" reads repetitively to me, and our link says they're "historic" counties, not "historical"...
  • In fact, you mention Lancashire four times in the first three sentences.
    • Corrected "historical" to "historic". I've deleted the following "Lancashire", but retained the others because they form part of the titles of different administrative regions. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last para sort of goes back to discussing what you were talking about in the first para including (this time) a link to the 1974 reorganisation. Seems a bit odd to go back there.
    • I've deleted the first sentence, rewritten the second, and merged the last two paragraphs (this also deals with one of the comments made above).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the 15th-16th century" I think date ranges like that need an en-dash per WP:DASH.
  • Any context for who Sir Pudsey was?
    • I've added that he was lord of the manor, with a reference. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support a very good list indeed, and one which should be thought of as a good current template for such lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Paley and Sharpe" perhaps use their full names on first use?

Only issue I could find, great work. NapHit (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you mean "Paley and Austin"? The problem with this is that, as the list is sortable, there is no "first use". And there were two Paleys, and two Austins at different times. The links take you to the complex but precise part of the Sharpe, Paley and Austin article, which deals with the relevant phases of the practice (which existed for more than 100 years!). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, as it seems this is more complex than it first appeared, I'm for it to remain this way. As see no other issues and believe the list meets the criteria, I Support. NapHit (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 20:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Excellent work, as ever. I note that some of the references have "." after them (e.g. "Hartwell & Pevsner 2009, pp. 332–334.") but your website ones don't (e.g. "Listed Buildings, English Heritage, retrieved 12 May 2012") because you're mixing families of citation templates. Changing {{citation}} to {{cite web}} will fix this, FYI, although it's not a very big deal. Otherwise only two comments, I think, both about the opening paragraph, strangely enough. I think it would be better to use an official copy of the 1972 Act at [3] rather than Wikisource, but unitary authorities post-date the 1972 Act anyway, so you might be better off finding a more modern source for the county history/structure; not terribly controversial but good to back it up. Secondly, and it might just be me, I still end up slightly puzzled as to whether this is a list of churches in the non-metropolitan county, or the ceremonial county.... BencherliteTalk 10:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments and advice. I have in fact got rid of all the "."s by adding a "ps=" field to the sfn templates. I've added the source for legislation as you suggest, and found links to other relevant (and I hope the correct) parliamentary acts. And I've clarified that the list relates to the ceremonial county. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grade I support. You make it look so easy, but an awful lot of work has clearly gone into all of this. BencherliteTalk 20:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An interesting, well researched and comprehensive list and the perfect complement to other Lists of Grade I listed churches.J3Mrs (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Another good example of these county-based lists, which have established a clear and user-friendly "house style". I concur with the supporting comments above, but just a few small observations:
  • On St Patrick's Chapel, Heysham, the coordinates are labelled "St Peter, Heysham". The coordinates themselves are accurate.
  • Some of the ALT text for the images has typos, as follows: Bolton-by-Bowland, Churchtown, Colne, Stydd ("of" should be "or").
  • ALT text for St Michael's on Wyre: "diagonal clock face" → "diamond-shaped clock face"?
  • I am satisfied that the list is comprehensive: that is, all Grade I-listed churches in the ceremonial county (Lancashire + Blackburn w/ Darwen + Blackpool) are included. To confirm this, I have been through the National Heritage List for England's lists of Grade I buildings for each of the three areas. I also checked the Google mapping of the coordinates, to ensure that all were correctly plotted; they were all fine. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Lead says "and a part of West Yorkshire was transferred into the county" – West Yorkshire did not exist until 1974 so nothing could be transferred, probably you should refer to the West Riding of Yorkshire which existed before 1974. Keith D (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice one! Thanks; corrected. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support' Thanks for the change. Look forward to some more of these lists. Keith D (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2012 (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/Grade_I_listed_churches_in_Lancashire/archive1&oldid=1138480242"