Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of new churches by John Douglas/archive1

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 Matthewedwards 17:52, 18 August 2009 [1].

---

List of new churches by John Douglas

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/List of new churches by John Douglas/archive1

I am nominating this for consideration as a featured list following copyediting and a peer review. The list includes all the churches designed by John Douglas and built. Nearly every church in the list has an article; the rest have a stub. Notes have been added about each church to give added value to the list. During the peer review the title was changed from "Works of John Douglas (new churches)" Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Doncram I'll give some quick reactions first, could come back with more comments later. I haven't yet looked at the previous peer review. First, I basically like the list-article, and see that it reflects various developments in historic place list-articles as implemented in previous FLC reviews (such as including coordinates and a link to the google/bing map, and more).

The word "new" in the title seems a bit odd. For one thing, these are not new churches. I see that you are looking for a way to distinguish this vs. other churches where Douglas did architectural modifications, and other complete building designs. Title-wise, I would prefer "List of churches designed by John Douglas" with an early clarification to be provided to mention that he also modified other churches. Or, why not have the article be about "Architectural works of John Douglas", with just short sections for other categories of his architectural work?

About the table formatting, I don't like how each cell is narrow and tall, at least in my browser view. The images are very small, and the Notes column is somewhat difficult/unpleasant to read. Could several columns be merged, perhaps for one to be "Location / Patron / Date" together? That would allow the Notes/description column to be together. Also, the "Refs" column is a waste of a column, visually, I think. Those footnotes could be added at the end of the Notes/description column. I am not sure what is best, but this seems like too many columns with too much whitespace due to the different amount of material in each one. Also perhaps the images could be larger?

I think adding mention of this FLC at wt:HSITES would be appropriate, if it is not already noted there. doncram (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I see in the Peer review that User:Finetooth thinks otherwise, but I personally would prefer for the '''{{GeoGroupTemplate}}''' Google/Bing map link to appear sooner, perhaps to show next to the TOC, rather than in the "External links" section. I don't feel that strongly about it, but I don't know how strongly Finetooth feels either. Perhaps some other image could appear in the whitespace next to the TOC, too. doncram (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My thinking was that these are direct links to an external site and that Wikipedia articles generally avoid embedding them in the main text. However, direct linking to external city web sites in the infoboxes of city articles seems to be standard practice, and, now that you mention it, at least some of the other FLs put the template exactly where you suggest, opposite the TOC. I have no strong feelings about the placement. Finetooth (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The alterations to the pre-existing churches would also have been designed by Douglas, so "List of churches designed by John Douglas" would be misleading. While "new" may be a subjective term, in this case it is defined and made clear that it means churches built from scratch by Douglas, so I don't see a problem there; any reader confusion will be eased by reading the article. Increasing the size of the images would exacerbate the situation of "narrow and tall" columns (not a problem on my screen, what browser and screen size are you using?) and may unduly dominate the table. The only column I think could be merged is "patron" as the info could be added to the notes column. My thinking is that it is the column with least information (ie: most empty columns rather than not being useful to the reader), however I'm ambivalent on this. Nev1 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that is overstating it, to assert that it would be "misleading" to use the title "List of churches designed by", which i currently think is best. No title suggestion so far is both short and perfectly descriptive; all would require some explanation.

My view of the list is using Firefox, on a laptop PC with a small-to-mid-size display, and I have Firefox open in a window that does not use the full screen, as I normally do. The description column for the Congregational Church that is the second entry in the table runs to 22 lines. If i switch to full screen view, that entry runs to 10 lines. Ninety percent or more of some columns, and most of all columns besides the description column and last column, is whitespace.

The pictures are variously sized at 100px and 60px. Changing the 60px ones to 100px would simply enlarge them within the same-sized column and would cost no space (there would still be whitespace above and below them within the row, at least in my Firefox view). doncram (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've messed about a bit with the column sizes to make the notes section larger. It doesn't solve the problem, but might ease it slightly. I'm using firefox 3.something and my screen resolution is 1280x800, and the table looks fine. At 1024x768 the table is a little stretched by the descriptions, but there's nothing else I could do about it by changing column widths and it still looks good, with little white space above and below the images. At 800x600 it looks awful, but it's an uncommon screen resolution.

Images are different resolutions because some are portrait and some are landscape. I previewed them with all at 100px and the portrait pictures stretched the rows and in some instance created white space. Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to the above. Sorry I have not responded earlier but non-Wikilife intervened a bit. To reply to the points made above (not in the order made).

• Format. Taking the points made above, I'll get rid of the Refs column (not necessary) and try incorporating the Patrons in the Notes. I'll then see how the images look.
• Title. The word "new" means to me both a new church on a virgin site, and a new church to replace a church formerly on the site, but demolished. This is to distinguish it from the many restorations of, and amendments and additions to, already existing churches, without replacing them. Nev1 seems to understand this concept too. Is it a transatlantic thing; does "new" have a subtly different meaning in USA from in Britain? It is after all an article on buildings in Britain by and English architect. "List of churches designed by John Douglas" would have to include the churches designed by Douglas but not constructed (and there were some). I see no point in adding these to the list; it would add nothing of value. If this title were used and designed-but-not-built churches were excluded, the pedants would undoubtedly have a point which could only be answered with a title like "List of churches designed by John Douglas and built" and that is awkward. "Architectural works of John Douglas" would not work because this would have to include all his works - and there are three other lists in preparation about these other works which I would like to bring to FLC if this list succeeds.
• WT:HSITES Thanks for the suggestion - done.
• Google/Bing map link. Strictly speaking it is an external link and so maybe should be in the External links section. But I agree it is more useful near the top of the list. What is the consensus on this? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. How's it looking? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good in Firefox 3.5 at 1280x800 and 1024x768, and even quite good at 800x600 as there's much less whitespace. It looks the same in IE (I think I'm running the latest version), how does it look for you doncram? However, there's something funny going on at the start of some of the date columns in IE. It looks like there's a blank cell overlapping the date column in the rows for St John the Evangelist's Church, St Ann's Church, St Stephen's Church, St Werburgh's New Church, Holywell Workhouse Chapel, St Wenefrede's Church, and All Saints Church. I've taken a look at the code, but I can't tell what's causing this I'm afraid? Nev1 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on outline It's looking better, format-wise, for me. Also I am okay with the current title, for what that is worth. When I first skimmed the article i had not known about the other articles; I added the hatnote at the top of the current article pointing to the disambiguation for the other works (also covered in See also at bottom). The outline currently is:

* 1 New churches
* 2 See also
* 3 References
     o 3.1 Notes
     o 3.2 Bibliography
* 4 External links

Since it is so simple, with only the one main section, I think it should be suppressed with a "__NOTOC__" at top of article. I am not familiar with what policy is for this exactly. doncram (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Response. Agreed. Dunnit. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Combine all the works? I looked at all 4 of the works of John Douglas articles, and I wonder if they should just be combined into one article with 4 sections. The current sizes of the articles are something like 38k, 32k, 38k, and 33k. A total size of 140k or so is okay, despite being over the 100k level for which a mechanical wikipedia suggestion is generated suggesting an article might best be split. I think the 100k level is less relevant as a guideline than it was a year or two ago. Also, the size of the combined article could be less than the sum of the separate component articles' sizes. Currently, the same portrait of John Douglas, and much of the same introductory text, and several of the sources, are included in all four articles. For someone interested in John Douglas, why not provide one stop shopping? I think that some other list-articles on architects' works are quite long, including many hundreds of works, although not necessarily in tabular format as here. A possible reason why this could be developed in 4 parts is that the combined list seems too daunting to get through FLC? But, we should focus on what is best for readers, not for FL reviewers. Anyhow, I am not seeing why the list needs to be split into four, causing repetition, coordination issues, and naming issues. doncram (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Response. I completely agree that all material on WP should be for readers and not for internal reviewers. When I split the list from the John Douglas article I had no intention of submitting it as a FL. I knew that a single list would be long and so, for the convenience of the reader, split it into 4 sections containing between 40 and 70 items each rather than having one list of 218 items. As a reader I find it easier to toggle across four open files rather then to scroll up and down an enormous list; but I suppose that's a personal preference. If you're interested in John Douglas, you read the article. If you're interested in his works you can look at the important works divided into the major categories either singly, or by having more than one file open and moving between the files. I don't see a problem with this or with the repetitive text; if you're reading one list it's there, if you're reading more than one you can skip the duplicated bits and read what is individual to that list. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good to be talking about it. It is certainly relevant to consider how many items are in the list components. And, I concede that a rule of thumb I have applied in U.S. NRHP list-articles, is to try to hold the number of items below 200. Only a few exceptions exceed that (I think the NRHP list for Detroit is one). I support the 200 item guideline in part because there is an undocumented limit in the Bing map display, which cuts off display of coordinates at 200 with no indication of it doing so. And the Bing map service is currently superior in various ways versus the Google map option. For another example, see list of National Historic Landmarks in New York State with 148 main items, and 16 secondary items, which I believe is a comfortable size.

I count about 40 in the New churches by John Douglas table (i think all with coordinates), and about 51 in the modified churches table (not yet having coordinates). These could easily all appear in one article: "List of churches by John Douglas", with two sections, and with the Google/Bing map link hanging next to the TOC that would then not be suppressed. The article could simply then link also to "Other works by John Douglas" that could easily hold all other works. That would avoid awkwardness in article naming present in the "new church" phrase and in the "houses and associated buildings" phrase used for one of the other of 4 articles now. About the duplication, and suggesting that readers skip over it: as a reader, you can't know what is duplication or not, unless you study it. I think it is best to edit down the intros of the 2 or 4 separate articles, to reduce the duplication. In particular, I think the large photo of John Douglas should be eliminated or at least reduced in size.

Another important virtue of combining the two churches articles into one (or combining all four articles into one), is that then the Google/Bing map is more helpful to readers. It would then display all the churches by John Douglas in one Google/Bing map, and a reader considering visiting some would be able to see, together, which ones are located nearby. The "name" chosen for Google/Bing map display can be edited to show "(New)" or "(Modification)" or "(Furniture)" as part of the label which will be displayed for each item in the Google/Bing map. I think reducing the 4 list-articles down to 2 articles would be a significant improvement. doncram (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had a good think about this and have decided that I prefer not to combine the articles. I find that National Register of Historic Places listings in Detroit, Michigan with its 232 items is slow to load, indigestible, and very difficult to navigate; the geobox is just a conglomerate of pointers. Compare this with List of castles in Cheshire with its 20 items; easy to navigate, easy to understand, neat and tidy (and it's a FL). Or even List of castles in Greater Manchester with its (only) 9 items (it's also a FL). As I said above, I (as a reader) find it much easier to deal with smaller lists (and if necessary to toggle across open files), than to scroll up and down a giant page. I wonder, again, if something transatlantic is going on here.

Regarding the suggested title "List of churches by John Douglas", it will not do. A restoration is not a "church by John Douglas"; nor is the addition of a vestry or a chancel; and most certainly a reredos is not a "church by John Douglas". The pedants would have a field day with that one.

Sorry but I just don't see any advantage to the reader in having two list-articles, each containing two separate lists, over four already separated but related lists; IMO it is a disadvantage. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well you clearly don't appreciate my opinion on this. To be clear, my opinion that 2 would be better than 4 is an editorial preference, and I think the principal author, you, should get your way on such matters. FYI, i was invited to comment here, and I gave my opinions and tried to explain my reasoning, in part based on my extensive experience with big NRHP and other big list-articles. Offhand, I don't think that searching for generalizations about American vs. British perspectives is helpful. I think my perspective is formed in part from working with big list-articles, period, though that experience is mostly with U.S. articles (I am working on some big lists of World Heritage Sites tho). Anyhow, good luck with the rest of this. doncram (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note to say that I will provide a review shortly, but need to go through the list in more depth first. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you leave it until the above is resolved. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I also will be reviewing in the next couple of days, but will wait for the structural kinks to be worked out. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Very wise; slightly more than a "kink" I think. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• • In the meantime, do you think it would be appropriate to draw up a navbox for John Douglas' "works" lists? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure; not experienced in the use or construction of navboxes. May I think about it? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course; it was only a question, not a mandate :) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did a rough draft of a navbox here. What do you think? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful; I thought you were suggesting something much more complex. Of course it all depends on the outcome of the discussion above. (I tried to fix the typo but it wouldn't let me.) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Simplicity is best. Of course, we can change the color or put in an image if you want. FWIW, I agree that this list should stay separate. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Present state After giving careful consideration to the discussion above, I have decided not to combine this list with any other and should be grateful if reviewers/assessors would give their opinions on the list as it stands. Ideas for improvements always welcomed, of course. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Lifespan isn't necessary for this article. Help! I think it's "hidden" and I can't find it. Sorry, I was referring to "(1830–1911) " right after Douglas' name. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I put it in because it immediately indicates the historical period in which he was practising, setting the time-context of his work. Otherwise something like "who was active in the mid-to-late 19th and early 20th centuries" seems clumsy. I think we need some idea of the period in which he worked early in the lead. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Two consecutive sentences in the first para start with the word "He". Variety please... Done. (Thanks Nev1) "Throughout his career, Douglas' most important patrons were the Grosvenor family of Eaton Hall, namely Richard Grosvenor, 2nd Marquess of Westminster, Hugh Grosvenor, 1st Duke of Westminster, and Hugh Grosvenor, 2nd Duke of Westminster." "Throughout his career" is probably unnecessary. Deleted. "Grade II* includes "particularly important buildings of more than special interest"" "includes" implies that there are other definitions than the one provided. Is this the case? Amended (and elsewhere). "For display of locations, click on "Map of all coordinates"." Probably not necessary. Agree; in fact the rest of the text duplicates what is above. I have deleted all of it. Does this work (in all browsers)? Why do you note the Grade listings but not Scotland's categories? Not sure what is meant. There is only one Scottish church, with its category recorded. An explanation of the Scottish categories is in Paragraph 4. Sorry, disregard this comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I notice that for the names of the churches in the table, you append "Church" to the end of the name, while Images of England always precedes the name with "Church of", instead. For example: sources is "Church of St John the Baptist", while list is "St John the Baptist's Church". I don't suppose it matters, but I wonder all the same. I think the two are interchangeable. Most WP church articles are entitled "St ...'s Church" and most sources (other than IoE) I have seen do the same. OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Put centred em dashes in the blank cells. You can make them sortable like so: {{sort|00|{{center|—}}}} Done. I've also sorted the Grades in the order I, II*, B, II, —. "Douglas & Fordham" Don't use ampersands. This was the official name of the firm; it was the British custom in the 19th century to use ampersands in their title rather than "and", and this convention continues to be followed in the sources. OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC) "wrote thousands of letter" Should this be "wrote thousands of letters"? Yes, corrected. Ref 28 should have "p.", not "pp.", unless you left out a page number. Corrected. Let me know if you want to put in the navbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, please I put it in. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. They are dealt with (except for the first). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Response made to the first. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Support: I peer-reviewed this list and thought it was excellent, and it has only improved since then. It appears that all of the issues raised by others above have been addressed. Finetooth (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. I was rather alarmed by the discussion above about merging this article. Longer lists may be fine for purely textual content, but when the elements of the list contain graphics, as in this case, I think it's better to have more smaller lists. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.