Talk:St Mary's Church, Bodewryd/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby declare my intention to terrorise Bencherlite by reviewing another of his excellent Welsh church articles and insisting on all sorts of petty changes in the name of "quality" and "meeting the GA criteria". :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

Resolved - History and location - "the church was held by the priory" - Pardon my ignorance, but I don't immediately understand what it means for a church to be "held", and there's no obvious wikilink near this sentence to help. Do you mean it in the sense of "held in trust by", or in the sense of "owned", or is it specific church jargon? This seems like something that might be best resolved by a relevant wikilink, if you can identify one. Otherwise could you explain it either through article text or in a footnote?
Resolved - Architecture and fittings - "(vertical sections, set in a square frame. The lights are separated by mullions)" - It is not correct for parentheses to contain both a complete sentence and a sentence fragment. It's debatable whether you need parentheses here at all. Perhaps try "is rectangular with three arched lights. The lights are vertical sections, set in a square frame, and are separated by mullions. There is an external hoodmould above the window."

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Resolved - Words to watch - "It is said by the Diocese of Bangor to be the second-smallest church in Anglesey." - Do we not trust the Diocese of Bangor? Are there other sources who contradict them? Is there a reason we can't just say, "It is the second-smallest church in Anglesey"? (This phrasing appears both in the lead and the article body.)
Resolved - Words to watch - "doorway from the 15th century or perhaps about 1500" - This is vague and unencyclopaedic language. Based on the explanation further down in the article, is there any reason we can't rephrase this as "a doorway in a 15th century style dating to around 1500"? There don't appear to be any sources contradicting Haslam (2009)'s assertion of c.1500.

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

All references appear in a dedicated and appropriately described section.

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

All content appears to be attributed to reliable sources through inline citations.

(c) it contains no original research.

There is no evidence of original research in this article.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

The article addresses all expected topics.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The article does not go into inappropriate detail.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
This is an uncontroversial topic and I am unaware of any relevant viewpoints that have not been fairly represented.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Prior to this GAR the article has only had one editor, and thus has not suffered from edit wars or disputes.
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

All images appear to be appropriately tagged and licensed.

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

All images are relevant to the article and suitably captioned.

Overview - Another good church article. There should be no problem promoting this to GA; I am only holding off to see if we can find a better way of dealing with this "it is said" phrasing. I'd like a neater approach to that particular content but in the event we can't agree on one I suspect it's not sufficient to stop a GA promotion. (Though give me time to consider that point!) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overview 2 - Everything is now fine and I will promote the article. Thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Church held by the priory - changed to "owned", which is I think the best alternative word.
Brackets - one was misplaced by me, so moved
"It is said" - unfortunately, the Diocese doesn't say whether it's working on length, square footage or cubic capacity (all of which would be possible methods of calculating the smallest churches). Neither does it say anywhere which the smallest church is. Nor does it say whether the porch is included, or whether only the main part of the church is counted. Nor does it say whether disused churches are included in this comparison (which, given the number of disused churches on Anglesey, is an important factor). Nor does the church appear as one of the Anglesey churches mentioned in "Discovering the Smallest Churches in Wales" (2007, ISBN 978-0752441016). The 1937 Royal Commission only gives measurements for the older buildings, not 19th-century replacements, so complete comparison is difficult. Nevertheless, looking at the 1937 report I discover that St Tysilio's Church is 1 ft shorter, albeit slightly wider (and so with a greater square footage), whilst St Mary's Rhodogeidio (disused) is shorter and also thinner (so has a smaller square footage) and two other disused churches which aren't simply box-shaped also have total square footages of less than this church. So I really don't know what's wrong with saying it like this, in the circumstances. Of the ones I have dimensions of to hand, and including disused churches, it's the fourth smallest in terms of total sq ft and the third shortest of those built in simple rectangular shape; excluding disused churches, it's the smallest in terms of total sq tf for which I have dimensions at present, and the second shortest.

Ideally this would be explained by a footnote, containing much of the information you have provided above. Failing that, a slightly more encyclopaedic phrasing would be "The Diocese of Bangore claims it is the second-smallest church in Anglesey," as this removes the passive voice. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1500 doorway - reworded in your neat phrase.

Look forward to the rest of your thoughts. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]