Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southeast England/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 Dabomb87 18:49, 18 June 2011 [1].

List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southeast England edit

List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southeast England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is the fifth and last of a series of lists of churches vested in the Churches Conservation Trust. The other four lists are all FLs. In this list the first two paragraphs of the lead are identical to the others, and the format of the list is similar to the other lists. All the churches in the list are linked to articles. The text has been copyedited.Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from — Rod talk 19:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another excellent list in the series (I am biased as I was involved in one of them). A couple of minor things I spotted:
  • Within the references on some occasions Churches Conservation Trust is wikilinked (eg 6,8,11...) but on others it is not (eg 1,4..).
  • In the description of St Lawrence Broughton Eligius points to a dab page - I assume Saint Eligius is intended?

Apart from these it appears to be will written, illustrated and laid out. Columns sort as expected and it is well referenced.— Rod talk 15:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting those. Both fixed (completely, I hope). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks I can't see any other problems so I'm happy to support.— Rod talk 20:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • One too many words in "which was built in in 1876–78."
  • St John the Baptist Mongewell: "near the The Ridgeway long-distance path." Remove first "the"?
  • St Mary Capel-le-Ferne: Minor, but a comma would be nice after Staveley's name.
  • St Peter Preston Park: Again minor, but I've always thought "among" was a little less overly formal than "amongst".
  • St Thomas a Becket Capel: Add "the" before 13th century? That seems to be consistent with how the rest of the descriptions are handled.
  • St Mary Pitstone: "a 12-century font" → "a 12th-century font"?
  • St Clement Knowlton: Another comma would be good after Narborough's name; this is similar to one of my earlier comments. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks also to you. All fixed. I'm repeatedly intrigued by the "missing" of such details, both by myself and others (should I be?). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I can't see any problems with this (hopefully Giants2008 got all of them!). I know other issues have been ironed out with previous nominations. It's well-written, attractive and useful, with good sources. Spot checking a few citations, I can see no problems with verifiability or too-close paraphrasing. I like how so many of them have very interesting little anecdotes & are not "just another church"! Some of the images (eg. St Andrew, Hove; St Peter, Preston Park) looked like they are floating in a little too much white space, but having experimented a bit in preview, I'm not sure there's any better way of sizing them. It's not a problem anyway. The only other tiny thing I thought was that you have one instance of "there are Perpendicular windows" (for St Michael, East Peckham). This could perhaps be "there are Perpendicular-style windows" purely to avoid confusing people who are not familiar with the term and might think it means perpendicular. It's already linked though, so, up to you.--BelovedFreak 10:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment; "-style" added. It's difficult to find a way of sizing the images to suit all, as different browsers and different screen sizes display them differently. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I like. I've reviewed a couple of these before and find them interesting and informative, more power to you.
  • " built in 1876–78" not keen on built "in" a range of years, perhaps, "between 1876 and 1878".
  • Table caption "year of construction" probably better to say "date" or "era" of construction here.
  • Our article on Purbeck marble has Marble capitalised. Similar for Bath stone. (I've probably said this before....!)
  • Elsewhere I've seen the Nativity referred to as The Nativity.
  • Not sure you need all the See also's when you have a template specific for this purpose.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've fixed the first four points. But I'm not sure about the See also section and the template/navbox. I agree that they duplicate each other, so for the purist one "should" go. (Here I must say as an aside, that I am not a fan of such templates. I did not create this one, although I am grateful for the effort put into it by its creator.) But IMO we should be here to serve the general reader, the person who looks maybe quickly at the article, and then wants to see something similar and related. The See also section is ideal for this; obvious, quick and easy. The general viewer will not have a clue what that blue thing at the bottom of the page is "for". Even if you open it, its function is not necessarily clear (it took me some time in my early days to make much use of them, but I readily took to the See also links — perhaps I am thick). So if the presence of both causes a problem of duplication, I would go for deleting the template rather than the See also section. I am of course interested in what others think about this.
Another idea might be to condense it in the following way:
See also

For lists of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in other regions see:

--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well like I said, I'm not sure you need them, but it's not a massive issue for me if they both stay. I prefer your idea of being as helpful as possible to the reader, so I think your suggestion above is the best solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2011 (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/List_of_churches_preserved_by_the_Churches_Conservation_Trust_in_Southeast_England/archive1&oldid=1089077698"