Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norton Priory/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 01:29, 30 June 2010 [1].

---

Norton Priory

Norton Priory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Norton Priory/archive1

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because since it became accepted as a GA it has been considerably expanded, mainly with material from a more-recently published book describing the excavation findings. Following this it has had a copy edit and a peer review. I hope it is now of sufficient quality to be accepted as a FA. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from White Shadows

• No dab links
• All external links are good
• Can you think of something better than an Alt text for an image that says "Refer to caption"?

• Alt text for the two images amended.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• The book: Starkey, H. F. (1990), Old Runcorn, Halton: Halton Borough Council, needs an ISBN

• There is no ISBN in the book and I cannot find one on an internet search. So I have added a ASIN (whatever that is).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• ASIN = Amazon Standard Identification Number, not really all that useful I don't think. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As it's a commercial reference number I have deleted it.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• The sentence: "The area open to the public consists of a museum, the standing archaeological remains, an area of garden and woodland, and the walled garden of the former house." Needs a citation.

• Done (although I would have thought this self-evident from the proceeding text).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling. I see words like Meter (American) and Organise (British) all through the text of the article.

• Please give more examples. So far as I know I have used British English throughout - if not it is a typo. For example the only "meter" shown by a search is part of "cemetery".--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 16:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Response

Thanks. Comments partly dealt with.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Media The image File:Norton_Priory_model.jpg is a derived copy of a 3d artwork / model, and does not appear appropriately labled, tag with {{FoP-UK}} if appropriate, otherwise remove. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Template is appropriate and has been added.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources: All sources look OK. One minor format issue: Ref 175 retrieval date should be in the standard format for the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for spotting it; and I thought I'd fixed the lot!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support Well written and comprehensive coverage of an extremely important archaeological site. Soph (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Espresso Addict

This is a solid, well-referenced, comprehensive article on a major archaeological site. Most of my comments are fairly minor.

• Some overlinking of nonspecialist terms could probably be pruned, given how many specialist words need linking.

• Some non-technical terms unlinked.

• There's a lot of care to state who considers what throughout, which can make it a bit hard to read. As there seems little controversy, perhaps many of these could be rephrased?

• I tend to agree. The names were introduced because at an early review, I was asked "who considered? ...who thought?", so I spent a lot of time adding authors' names. I have kept these at first occurrence (and occasionally later), but rephrased the others; it should IMO be clear from the citation who considered what and who thought what.

• The amount of direct quotations could be reduced throughout, especially where not using historical sources.

• Some removed; others retained to prevent charges of NOR and the use of peacock words.

• There is some repetition between History, Excavations & Present day sections, which should be reduced where possible.

• I have tried to remove the repetitions which do not impair the flow of the "stories".

• Some sections could probably be trimmed, eg as indicated below.
• One or more plans of the abbey/priory would be very helpful in understanding the site.

• I have not been able to find any copyright-free plans.

• It might be helpful to put in letters from the plans where relevant to structures mentioned in the text.

• Done.

• History/Priory

• stub articles for William fitz Nigel, & possibly William fitz William, would be valuable. It might be helpful to link "Barons of Halton" at the first independent mention (ie not attached to a name) to the list of barons.

• First mention of "Baron of Halton" linked. Clicking on the two Williams (both blue-linked) takes you to their section of the list, which is a sort of stub. I am not convinced that separate stub-articles are merited for either, considering that we know so little else about them.

• a stub article for Norton, which makes clear that it was a separate village but is now part of Runcorn urban area, would be useful.

• Stub written and linked.

• what was the relationship of William de Warenne, 6th Earl of Surrey to the Barons of Halton?

• I have not found one, but the earl made a grant to the priory for Alice's soul; text amplified to explain this.

• I think this needs clarifying, as Alice is not clearly among the "members of the family [of the Barons of Halton] known to be buried there".

• Expanded. I've found some more info about Alice, which I should have found earlier, but was looking in the wrong sources.

• is 26 the total number of members of community or the number of canons?

• The text says "It is estimated that the original community, probably no more than 12 canons and the prior, had increased to around 26 ...", so I conclude this would be 25 canons plus the prior.

• "making it one of the largest houses in the Augustinian order" can you briefly give some sense of how large other houses were, both Augustinian and other types?

• I do not have this information.

• History/Abbey

• explain that St Christopher is depicted carrying Christ across a river?

• Done.

• "Although the influence of the Barons of Halton was by then diminished" -- on the priory or in the country?

• Clarified.

• para. 2, not sure why so many quotations in this paragraph -- reword some?

• One reworded. The others IMO add colour to the story and, as they are direct quotes from the sources, are in quotation marks to avoid a charge of copyright violation.

• para. 3, "Although the records of the priory and abbey have not survived, the excavations of the 1970s and since, and the study of documents, have produced evidence of how the monastic lands were managed." rather clumsy -- can it be simplified?

• Done.

• para. 3, interesting to examine how this differs from other similar houses & Cheshire in general. eg Hewitt (Cheshire under the Three Edwards, p. 36) states that "Whereas in some counties the monastic granges had very large flocks [of sheep], we are not aware of there being any sheep on the manors of the religious houses of Norton, Birkenhead or even Chester till, in the last decade of the fourteenth century, some sheep were stolen from the abbot of Chester;" Several sources state that grain, particularly wheat didn't grow well in Cheshire.

• To carry out a proper comparison between Norton and other monastic foundations in Cheshire (and maybe elsewhere) is beyond the scope of this article and would require another separate article. For example, there is evidence of sheep, and even of wool production, at Norton after the end of the 14th century; a field conveyed to Sir Richard Brooke in 1545 was called the Shepe House and at this time there was a fulling mill in the manor of Norton (Greene p.51).

• clarify what roles Sir Piers Dutton & Sir William Brereton have in the abbey's dissolution. How did Norton's dissolution compare with other Cheshire monasteries?

• Roles of Dutton and Brereton clarified. I do not have source material to compare Norton's dissolution with any other monastery.

• Can you rephrase "However following delaying tactics" ?

• Done.

• History/Country house

• para. 1, which Randle Holme? Any more detail on the date of the sketch? If not then "little changed during the next 100 years" probably needs rephrasing.

• It is impossible to say. As you probably know, there were four generations whose head was called "Randle Holme" and who flourished in the 17th century. The only date given for the sketch is the 17th century. Although the source mentions 100 years, it is not clear on which evidence this is based, so I have reworded the paragraph, as suggested.

• para. 2, full name for Brooke, otherwise still appears to refer to first Sir Richard. The family appears to be spelled "Brook" in Dore's The Civil Wars in Cheshire.

• First name (Henry) added. As you know, variations in the spellings of names occur frequently. Ormerod uses both spellings in the same article; in the text it is mainly "Brook"; in the pedigree table it is "Brooke" throughout. Modern historians consistently use Brooke, and this is the spelling used by the current generation of the family.

• para. 3, "Clearance of the other medieval buildings" & "these medieval buildings" -- which buildings?

• Clarified.

• para. 4, "He held out against it until the canal was opened in 1773 from Manchester to Runcorn, except for 1 mile (2 km) across his estate, which meant that goods had to be unloaded and carted around the estate. Eventually Sir Richard capitulated and the canal was completed throughout its length in March 1776." needs clarifying -- the "until" in the first sentence seems wrong?

• Paragraph reworded.

• para. 5, "the external flight of stairs" -- are these the west front double flight?

• Clarified.

• para. 6, not sure so many details of the canals/railways on the estate are needed?

• There is little other information about the history of the estate during this period. The estate was significantly disturbed by these developments and IMO it is valid to include them.

• last para., detail seems to belong in the following section about the excavations?

• Sorry, I don't agree; this is part of the history of the site - and it includes nothing about the findings of the excavations.

• The current text is under History/Country house, which is inaccurate. Perhaps a separate section under History called "Excavations and museum" is the way to go?

• Done.

• ditto, "Specialists were employed and local volunteers were recruited. Teams of supervised prisoners were used to perform some of the heavier work." not sure all this detail is necessary?

• Why not? I thought it was particularly interesting that prisoners were used (or is that common practice in excavations?).

• On reflection, I think the level of detail would be appropriate if the excavations had their own sub-section, as I suggest above.

• See above

• Were Brown and Howard-Davis directly involved in the excavations?

• It appears not. They seem to have been involved with the post-excavation assessment, the compilation of the database, and the analysis of the findings together with the compilation of specialists' reports. (Brown and Howard-Davis, p. xxi)

• This might bear directly stating; I'd assumed they were.

• I've added info under Excavations and museum.

• ditto, "The excavation became the largest in area to be carried out by modern methods on any monastic site in Europe" -- clumsy wording.

• And looking back at the source it's a copyvio. Not easy to express clearly and precisely what is claimed. I've rewritten it, but it's still clumsy - can any improvement be suggested without disturbing its accuracy?

• I've had another go, but I'm not sure it's improved from the original.

• Findings from excavations: Why is this section split differently from the History? Either split both at the same point, or (preferably) break the excavations into smaller sections.

• I'm not convinced this is the best and most natural way to handle the material. IMO the History splits neatly into Priory/Abbey/Country house. This does not necessarily apply to the Findings. Brown and Howard-Davis make their first division at the fire of 1236, and then take their account directly through to the dissolution; they do not make a clear break at the elevation to abbey, and it would be difficult to divide their material into a separate section at this point. I prefer to stick with the experts and not try to "improve" on their format. Does it really matter to the reader?

• With my publishing hat on, yes, I think heading & paragraph structure are key to a reader's understanding of text. I don't think you need to stick to the divisions in the source. Perhaps a split after paragraph 2 to separate "Original priory" from "Early modifications"? I'd also advocate splitting the current long para 2 into two, to deal with the church & other buildings separately.

• Para split. I hope this is OK, as on a previous FAC I was criticised for having too-short paras and a too-long ToC.

• Priory 1134–1236: 'Brown and Howard-Davis believe that "the canons' removal to the new site could have been a relatively protracted affair"' -- this sentence might need more set up or moving till after the statements on finding temporary buildings; it doesn't need direct quotation.

• I've deleted the sentence; its adds little to the article. Without quotes someone will want to know how long is "a relatively protracted affair".

• Priory and abbey 1236–1536: Para. 2 is very vague as to dates.

• Tried to clarify this.

• Country house

• "The same authors point out that the primary focus of the excavations of the 1970s and 1980s concentrated on the medieval priory and abbey, and that findings relating to the later house on the site were of less interest to the excavators." This feels like it's leading to something, but isn't followed up.

• Sentence deleted.

• As this section is later in date than the rest, perhaps it might be better at the end?

• I've moved this section to after Burials, and added a phase referring to the artifacts in the following sections.

• Burials: at >1000 words this section feels overly long; in particular, the material on diseases, though interesting, felt disproportionate.

• From local knowledge, I am aware that the skeletons were of particular interest, and they were studied in detail at Liverpool University. (Another factor is my own medical background.) I'm not sure if findings in other monastic sites have been studied in such detail, but IMO the detail in this section is not inappropriate at FA level.

• I still think this could use pruning, particularly in the long paragraph starting "The bones show a variety of diseases and degenerative processes." Perhaps a separate article, with a shorter summary here?

• Pruned.

• Artifacts from the buildings: is any date information available for the tiles?

• Dates added for both series of tiles.

• Artifacts from daily life: the post-dissolution parts of this section appear overly long for their importance. I don't think it's necessary to catalogue everything that was found at the site, and suggest including details only for pre-dissolution finds, unless particularly interesting.

• Brown and Howard-Davis make the point (sentence now deleted) that Greene concentrated only on the pre-dissolution material, and rather ignored the later material. For balance, should this not also be included?

• I still think it's overlong for the interest value.

• Pruned.

• Present day/Museum: Slightly more detail on St Christopher statue would be interesting, including an image, if possible.

• There's a "main article" link to a separate, much more detailed article on the statue, so I deliberately made this subsection short. Regarding an image, when I visited the museum I was given permission to photograph anything but the statue (a great pity). The statue is owned by National Museums Liverpool and for some reason they refuse to allow photography in the special exhibition area containing the statue. The copyright-free images I have found do not necessarily accurately reflect it. I believe I could (maybe should) go to NML and ask for some sort of copyright permission, but that would take time - too long I guess for the FA process.

• I still think a bit more would help here. An image would be great if you could persuade the NML to release the rights, but in its absence this important relic is underdescribed.

• Expanded.

• Current activities: Much of this section feels a bit bland. How many people visit annually? What does the museum do that's different from others?

• I cannot find sources to provide answers to these questions; but I have expanded the section slightly.

• The rough visitor numbers would be particularly interesting, but I don't know of any source for such material.

• I could of course ring them and ask, but that would be OR.

Espresso Addict (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Espresso Addict's Comments. I have replied to each comment, sometimes taking action as suggested; otherwise trying to justify why I have not.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Responses interleaved above. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Further responses interleaved. Hope I have covered them all.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. All my main concerns have now been addressed. If new sources emerge to address the minor points remaining or a photograph of the St Christopher statue becomes available I think they would be valuable additions, but I believe the article is of Featured standard as it is. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I've looked through this a few times as it's developed over the last few months, and I've got no doubt that it meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from HeartofaDog

There's a convention (which I can now only find referred to here, although it's longer established than that) that the names of saints, when referring to the saints themselves, are in the form "Saint X", and in the short form "St X" or "St. X" only when referring to things named after them, such as churches, monasteries and so on, which → Saint Christopher, Saint Bertelin and Saint Mary. HeartofaDog (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Fixed.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: When I read the first sentence/paragraph of this article, it gives me no clue as to what Norton Priory is. The first sentence says:

Norton Priory was established as an Augustinian foundation near Runcorn, Cheshire, England in the 12th century, and was raised to the status of an abbey in 1391.

That is valuable history, but what actually is it?

The first sentence should read:

Norton Priory is an historic site near Runcorn, (County, Country) comprising remains of an abbey complex of the (number to number) centuries, a country house of the (numero) century and whatever of the (numero) century. It is the ...(gimme one really important fact) and is (heritage listed?)

Now give me the details:

Norton Priory was established as an Augustinian foundation in the 12th century, and was raised to the status of an abbey in 1391.

Amandajm (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. I've amended the introduction along the lines you suggest. Is that now appropriate? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Clearly meets FA standards, though I found the section on the statue too short, given its significance. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. The article seems so long as it is, and I had hoped that the "main" link would allow easy access to those who were interested in more details.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

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