Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed churches in Cheshire/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 22:13, 2 July 2012 [1].

Grade I listed churches in Cheshire[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list of the Grade I listed churches in the county. I consider that is satisfies the FL criteria. The text has been copyedited, and the format is similar to that used in other lists that have achieved featured status. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments nice list, some quick comments.
  • We don't tend to use "This list contains all..." as a starter any more. For instance, featured articles don't start with "This article...".
  • Especially when you end the lead "This is a complete list of Grade I listed churches..." (which is okay by me, incidentally).
  • William Butterworth and "rendered" are dab links so should be resolved.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I have amended the start back to an earlier version which I prefer (changed following a suggestion). Is this OK? And I thought I had dealt with the dab links, but they must have got lost somewhere; so dealt with again. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • As a native of Chester this list has been an eye-opening read, I certainly didn't realise the history behind some of the churches that I see nearly every day and have never really given second thought about them, so I thank you for taking it upon yourself to improve his list, as its been a fascinating read. I do have a few comments however:
  • I would probably reference the bit about the council splitting into two and possibly the 1974 bit as well
  • WP:CONTEXTLINK frowns upon bold links so I would add plainrowheaders to "wikitable sortable" to solve the issue

NapHit (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and advice. Both done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • In several entries, there's an extra vertical line appearing for me in the left side of the notes. I've had this in a couple of other lists and no one seems to know why this happens, so it's possible this is just my computer. Do you see a line in there? If so, try and remove them
  • Chester Cathedral: Typo in "artchitecture".
  • St Mary Eccleston: Period needed after "built in 1899".
  • Formatting of ref 73 is busted. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vertical lines in the notes on my screen. The other glitches have been corrected; thanks for spotting them. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 11:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Quick comment, intend on reviewing in more detail (and no doubt supporting) tomorrow. Personally, I think that it would be better to have the information about "what is a listed building?" rather earlier than the end of the fourth paragraph of the lead. Casual readers are likely to get the idea that "Cheshire" is a geographical description of some sorts, but "listed building" has a specialist meaning. You could omit the last half-sentence of the first para, and move the fourth para up to be the second para. I also wonder if the first sentence of the existing second para would be better at the end of the para; it just seems a little odd to talk about the modern economy before the history and building materials, which are more relevant to the list than chemicals and textiles... More (but not much, I suspect) to come. BencherliteTalk 20:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments:
    • I've shuffled the content of the lead about a bit as per my above comment and added a phrase about what listed building status means. Feel free to play around / remove my changes, but I think it helps to have listed buildings explained before the economy of Cheshire is described, for example.
    • Spotchecks of the online sources revealed no problems apart from minor one query. I don't have the relevant Pevsner volumes, so just looking at the National Heritage Liat: the NHL says that the screen at St Boniface Bunbury is 1527 but our list says 1450 - is the earlier date from Pevsner?
    • Excellent work, particularly on all the articles of the individual churches. BencherliteTalk 11:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for carrying out the amendments and the addition.
    • You had spotted that I had problems with the organisation of the lead! I was out all morning today chairing a meeting, and when I arrived back you had done it before I could get to it. If this list is successful, I have some more about grade I listed churches in other counties, and this lead will produce a good basis for the other lists.
    • This is complex, and a problem caused by only having such brief notes, in which I have tried to pick the more interesting or important points. There are in fact three screens in the church: a chancel screen of 1921; a stone screen in the chancel which is dated 1527 (and said to be important in its own right); and a screen of painted wooden boards that is considered to date from about 1450 — this is leaning against the south aisle wall. Both the NHL and Pevsner & Hubbard (1971) refer only to the first two screens. Hartwell et al (2011) include the third and say it is "the only substantial painted medieval screen to survive in Cheshire". I seem to remember from visiting the church 4 or 5 years ago that I read a notice saying that the third screen had been away for restoration, and only recently returned. If my memory is correct, it would explain the differences.
    • Thanks for your comment about the articles. It is not always possible, but I prefer it if the items in a featured list relate to articles in WP. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (repeated from inside the capped comments). BencherliteTalk 11:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Overall fairly tidy File: pages. No problems found, except this one. Goodraise 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Photograph of St James changed.
  • The photo of St Peter, Prestbury is taken from a copyrighted commercial publication [2] (sorry I had not spotted that), and I doubt that if the copyright owner realised the full implications of a free licence he would allow it. I have therefore substituted File:Prestbury Church, Cheshire - geograph.org.uk - 363255.jpg from Commons (originally on Geograph) which does have the correct licence. It's black and white, but IMO that does not attract from its merit, and its purpose in the list. Hope that's OK. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:26, 24 June 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_Cheshire/archive1&oldid=1089081322"