Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St Denys' Church, Sleaford/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2015 [1].

St Denys' Church, Sleaford[edit]

Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Denys' in Sleaford is an Anglican church in the English county of Lincolnshire, dating to the 12th century. Its tracery was praised by Pevsner, but the church, like the town, has not attracted much attention. Hopefully, this article will help correct that. The article recently passed GA and I believe it is comprehensive, reliably sourced throughout and neutral; the structure seems to follow many of the other Anglican church articles. This will be my first FAC, so I am not holding out for too much, but any constructive comments, queries and suggestions are welcome. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator: I will not be at my desk between 8–16 September and I may not respond to comments swiftly or at all before I am back; I will be around as normal from the 16th. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking this.

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

This seems to my layman's eye to be comprehensive and balanced. The prose could do with a little attention:

  • Lead
    • "A church and priest has existed" – two nouns but a singular verb
    • "alter tombs" – "altar tombs", surely?
  • Description
    • "It is dedicated to St Denys…" – this sentence is eighty words long and could do with being chopped in two or even three. (split into two - hopefully an easier read now!)
    • The second paragraph is liable to suffer from WP:DATED, which can be mitigated if you add "As at 2105" or words to that effect.
  • Background and origins
    • "A large horde of coin moulds" – wrong sort of hoard
    • "Late Iron Age" – if the middle Iron Age, a few lines above, has an uncapitalised "middle", do we want a capitalised "Late" here?
    • Second para: you wait till the second batch of carucates, sokemen and villeins to add blue links. Better to link them at first mention.
  • Expansion
    • Not quite sure why "Despite" in the first sentence – it doesn't seem to have any connection with the fact that the town and church were altered.
    • "likely c. 1180" – unexpected Americanism: one would expect "probably" in a BrEng article (here and below)
    • "the post-Conquest Bishops, who were its patron" – could they all be one patron?
    • "according to the local historian Edward Trollope" – you've already introduced him; we don't need the job description and given name repeated here.
  • Early modern and later
    • Trollope again – the job description, given name and another blue link.
    • "non-conformist" – I'd be inclined to lose the hyphen, to match our WP article on the subject, to which you should add a blue link, I'd say.
    • "2,000 persons" – do we need "persons" here? They'd hardly be anything other than persons.
    • "two major "restorations" to St Denys" – I sympathise with the implied horror at well-meant Victorian mucking up of old churches, but I think your quotation marks are too tendentious for Wikipedia and should be deleted.
  • Architecture, fittings and grounds
    • Some grammarians, particularly American ones, no longer consider it illiterate to use "due to" as though it had passed, like "owing to", into a mere compound preposition. But "because of" is plainer and better than either, and is usually the best bet. Here, though, I'd just write "after".
    • "restored by Sir Ninian Comper in 1918" – he wasn't knighted till 1950 and the Manual of Style bids us take care not to give people titles prematurely. - well-spotted
    • "The screen, altar rails in St Hugh's Chapel are the work of C. H. Fowler and, while E. Stanley Watkins completed the reredos in 1906." – this sentence needs a bit of work, possibly an "and" after "screen" and "and, while" could be replaced with a semicolon.
  • Memorials
    • First sentence: change of tense from present to past, and the comma splice before "however" needs attention. (Personally, I'd lose the "however" and add a semicolon instead.) - tweaked, is it okay?
    • "The English novelist" – is it important to mention that she was English?
    • "to local solicitor Henry Snow" – unexpected and unwelcome false title here. The addition of "a" before "local" and a comma after "solicitor" would remedy it.
  • Sources
    • I'm a bit dubious that Hoare's book necessarily qualifies as a WP:RS, but I know how limited the available material often is on local history/geography, and I think it reasonable not to press the point. Happily you don't rely overmuch on the book. Trollope is very heavily relied on, but there are enough citations to other published sources to make this acceptable, I'd say.

I'm not an expert on church architecture, and as I'd value the input of editors who know more about the subject than I do, I'll do a little (legitimate) canvassing. For my own part, I'm inclined to support the promotion of the article, and will revisit the matter once you have addressed my points, above. – Tim riley talk 14:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ever so much, @Tim riley: Hopefully, I've addressed all of the issues you've raised above (as of this edit). I agree that Hoare's book is less than perfect, which is why I've mostly used it for minor 20th century developments; sadly, he is the only author who discusses the dedication. Let me know if I've missed anything. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Good – the prose strikes me as up to standard now, and as I have said earlier the content seems to me both comprehensive and adequately sourced and cited. I see no reason to withhold my support. I hope (reasonably confidently) that more expert reviewers than I will take a similarly favourable view. Tim riley talk 18:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Tim, that's much appreciated. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Support Excellent article. My only complaint would be maybe the lede is a tad short and might benefit from a bit more architectural detail.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: thank you very much. I will see what I can do about expanding the lead. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comments I do not consider myself to be a reviewer but would like to make comments on the comprehensiveness of the article:

  • It has been pointed out to me in the past that an active church is not just a building, but is also a community of people, and I think information abut this should be included in a FA. The church as a website here, which gives info including the present personnel in the church and its current activities, and there is also the CoE website here.
I have taken a look at the websites you suggest. I believe I have already covered the services the church offers. Aside from its summer fete, I can't see much more about its activities that's worth including. What did you have in mind? I've also looked at the list of people. I can add the churchwardens and organist if it's necessary, but I do worry that it's information which is liable to go out of date and probably isn't needed and it's not included in existing FAs like St Nicholas, Blakeney and St Helen's Church, Ashby-de-la-Zouch.
  • It would be helpful to have a map in the infobox.
I have added one.
  • There is no information about the present state of the organs (main and chapel). This can be found here and doing a search for Sleaford.
Thanks for pointing this out. Is it a reliable source? If so, I will add it as a reference.
It is the official website of the British Institute of Organ Studies, and having used used it in most of my church articles, have found nothing to suggest it is unreliable. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the info on the bells has not changed since the Trollop reference (1872), there is current info here.
As above, is this a reliable source?
Similarly for Dove's Guide for Church Bell Ringers. Its authenticity is described on its home page here. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not happy about the "Previous denomination" being given as "Roman Catholic". This presumably refers to the pre-Reformation state, when the whole western Christian church was Catholic. I suggest this field be left empty to prevent confusion.
I was unsure about this myself and I agree with you. It's gone now.
  • Not essential, but have you considered having an "Appraisal" section to confirm why the architecture of the church is important. Such a section could define what Grade I listing means, and also include comments from Pevsner and others about its special and/or unique features.
All of Pevsner's comments worth including have been incorporated into the architecture section. The English Heritage listing is short and doesn't say much about national significance apart from the tracery, which I've already talked about in the architecture section. As a result, I am really not sure it needs an appraisal section.
A nice article but I should prefer it to be more comprehensive at FA level. Good luck. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter I. Vardy: thanks for you comments, I have some queries about a few of them, which I've outlined above; I've tweaked a couple of things as per your suggestion. I am not really sure that there is any more activities/services information worth adding, likewise about personnel. I am also not sure it needs an appraisal section because that material is already in the architecture section. If you could confirm that the two links you suggested are reliable sources, I'd be happy to add them to the article. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Peter I. Vardy: thank you for clarifying the reliability of the sources above. I have now added them and information on the organs - would you be okay to take a look and see whether it's all right now? (Thank you too for providing the sources - I shall use them for future articles!) All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that looks fine. The following can be linked: Samuel Green (organ builder), Forster and Andrews, Harrison & Harrison. (I am now away for a few days.)--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're all linked now. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Tentative Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

first the north aisle was rebuilt by the local builders Kirk and Parry in 1853; second, the tower and spire were largely rebuilt in 1884... - I think the "first" and "second" are unneeded here and not helpful for flow
A Perpendicular clerestory adorns the aisles with three-light window... - any reason why "perpendicular" is capitalised here?
I made these changes. Hope they're ok.
@Casliber: Your alterations are fine - thank you. I have removing the problematic "first ... second" phrasing as per this diff; as for your other comment, I am referring to Perpendicular Gothic, a type of Gothic architecture, which appears to be capitalised throughout its article. Let me know if there are any other comments or suggestions. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, in which case I would link "Perpendicular" to the appropriate section/article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: it is already linked, in the first paragraph of the "Architecture, fittings and grounds" section. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Noswall59: aaaah my bad indeed. In which case strike that and consider me moving into Support territory on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt[edit]

  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Minor quibble really: I think it's best practice to have in-line citations for the info in the image captions, to make it easier for future editors and readers to find out more about that info in a quick fashion. — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cirt: Thanks for taking a look. The MOS seems silent on the issue. Which of the images do you have in mind? All of the dates etc. included in captions are cited in the article and most of them don't contain that sort of information anyway. I am happy to add references to any where you feel it's needed though. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rood screen, restored by Sir Ninian Comper in 1918
  • East window of the chancel with stained glass by Ward & Hughs, 1853/4
  • Yvonne Double memorial window, by Glenn Carter, 2006

These 3 should have cites. The rest are all fine per your argumentation. :) Let me know once those are fixed, then happy to have another look. — Cirt (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: okay, thank you for clarifying. I've cited two of them and removed dates and maker from a third (I think it was copied from the geograph info, which was not correct). Let me know if there are any other concerns you have. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. Looks a bit better, thank you ! — Cirt (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for your comments and support. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • "the present vicar, Rev. Philip Anthony Johnson, was appointed in 2013": since this article will, I hope, be around after the vicar retires, this would be better with an "as of" construction: perhaps "the Rev. Philip Anthony Johnson, who was appointed in 2013, is the vicar as of 2015". Or perhaps roll this in with the "as of" construction you have in the following paragraph?
  • Done
  • "an unknown Syrian saint": I don't quite follow. In what sense is he unknown?
  • His name and details of his life are not known beyond his works. I've changed to anonymous - is that better?
  • In a couple of places you say "Holy Communion is conducted from", rather than "at", a time. Is that the usual wording? "At" would sound more natural to my non-churchgoing ears.
  • Changed both instances to "at"
  • I think the plural of "sokeman" should be "sokemen", per this.
  • Well spotted.
  • In the background section, I don't follow the final part of the argument -- if they conclude the reference in Domesday is to the church in Old Sleaford, how can it also refer to New Sleaford?
    I am not sure where the confusion is here. There were two manors in Sleaford: one held by the Bishop and one by an Abbot. The Bishop's manor included a Church, which was assumed to be the church at Old Sleaford (because it was supposed that St Denys' didn't exist at that time). However Mahany and Roffe showed that the church in old Sleaford was actually included in Quarrington's entry; therefore, the record of the Bishop's manor at Sleaford which included a church must have been alluding to St Denys' Church. Does this make sense? I have tried to convey that in the article anyway... —Noswall59 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I think I get it now. You say "there were two manors in Sleaford", but in the article you say "Two manors called Eslaforde were recorded in Domesday"; I didn't realize that Eslaforde was an early name for Sleaford, and I therefore didn't understand that the argument was that the churches referred to as being in these two manors had to be the churches in Sleaford. Can you make that a bit clearer? If I'm slow on the uptake about that, others will be too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point. I have put Sleaford in brackets after Eslaforde - does that help? —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Yes, that does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't until I finished that paragraph that I realized that the reassessment referred to in the earlier paragraph was, in fact, laid out for me in the second. I wouldn't suggest anything as clumsy as "as follows", but I'd like to see the reader made aware that the argument is first mentioned and then given. It might be enough just to move the mention of the reassessment to the start of the second paragraph.
  • I believe I have tweaked it to make it less confusing; I have moved the last clause of the first paragraph to the beginning of the next.
  • Is there any reason to link to the Google Books version of a source if there's no text available? I'm not sure it's harmful, though perhaps a source reviewer might comment if this is usual. Nikkimaria, is there any reason not to do this?
    Per WP:PAGELINKS GBooks links should usually only be added when preview is available, although I wouldn't say it's harmful here - just redundant (ISBN already links to GBooks and many other sources). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Nikki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, I assumed it would be okay. I have removed the links where the books are not available for preview on Google Books.
  • "A prebendary of Sleaford is recorded in the late 13th century and was probably founded by the post-Conquest Bishops, who were its patrons." A couple of things. I'm not an expert in church terminology, but isn't the prebendary the holder of the benefice, and the prebend is the benefice itself? So it would have been the prebend that was founded, not the prebendary? Second, does the last part mean that the Bishops who were its patrons founded it, or that it was founded by a group of people whom you're referring to as "the post-Conquest Bishops"? I think you mean the former, since the latter implies that all post-Conquest Bishops founded it; in that case you need to drop the comma after "Bishops".
  • I have tried to make this clear, let me know if it's still problematic. The prebend was probably founded by one of the post-Conquest Bishops and the Bishops were always its patrons.
  • "Located on the north aisle, the chaplain was instructed to pray there": needs to be reworded; this makes it sound like the chaplain was located on the north aisle.
  • Clarified
  • Why do we need Edward Evans death date?
  • We don't - removed.
  • "during its 1870 elections": I think "its" refers to the Board of Guardians, but there are so many nouns in between that I think I'd make it explicit -- at least "during the Board's 1870 elections".
  • Done
  • What or where is Westgate?
    A street - how should I make this clear in the text?
    I don't think you need the street, do you? Couldn't you just say "in Sleaford and Quarrington"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. —Noswall59 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • I don't think you need "But" in "But the Anglican congregation ...".
  • "an estimated 700 to 800 people in 1851 (St Denys' had a sitting of 743 people)": what does "sitting" mean? That's how many people could be seated? Or that was a typical number of attendees at a service?
  • It's the space available [2]. I have tweaked the wording
  • "memory of the local solicitor Henry Snow": perhaps just "memory of a local solicitor, Henry Snow", unless he deserves special mention in some way.
  • "and an extensive restoration work": do you need "an"? It doesn't sound natural to me.

-- I should be able to finish this review tomorrow. Generally this is looking pretty good to me; just a few quibbles so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Hello and thank you ever so much for your comments so far. I have striken the comments which I believe have been corrected as per this edit. I could do with clarification about the query re Westgate. Could please you let me know whether the passages on the saint, Domesday and the prebend are up to scratch now as well? All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I see from your nomination that you're new to FAC, so welcome! This is a solid article and I look forward to seeing more of your nominations. A couple of very minor formatting points for the FAC (as opposed to the article). It's usual to let the reviewer do the striking, rather than striking the comments yourself as you reply -- that's because the reviewer may not always agree that the point has been dealt with, so it's best to let them decide when something can be struck. Not an issue here, since I agreed with you in every case, but something to be aware of. Also, it's usual (though not universal) to sign each of your interspersed replies to points, so that if the conversation extends beyond a single reply it's clear who said what. Again not an issue here. Finally (and this is something even experienced Wikipedians get wrong all the time) the indents following a "*" or ":" should always match the one above, otherwise you can get odd-looking results, such as bullets floating to the left. For example, if you're responding to a bulleted entry beginning with "*", and you want a simple indent below it, use "*:", not ":*".
Everything you've struck looks OK to me; I made a couple more little tweaks. I've replied to your question above, and it looks like you missed one point, which is still unstruck above. I expect to support once those minor points are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Hello and thank you for the comments and advice - I will bear it all in mind from now on. I have removed the Westgate reference, but I am not sure how to address the remaining query you have. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Continuing the review:

  • "a 15th-century window was moved to churchyard": presumably "the churchyard"? Is the churchyard a part of the church building? "Yard" in the US means what "garden" means in the UK, so this sounds a bit as though the window was just dumped outside. Can you be more specific?
    It does indeed refer to the church's grounds, and the window was removed from the building and left standing in the corner of the churchyard, as can be seen here [3]. I have tweaked the wording and linked churchyard. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is amazing. I would never have guessed you meant that. Perhaps make it "placed outside in the churchyard", which I know is redundant but makes it quite clear. If a picture is available that would be good too. I'll go ahead and strike this point since there's nothing wrong here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, it's hard to believe they did that... There is a photo at Geograph, which I will transfer over and add to the gallery. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • "the building's listing": many readers won't know what you mean by "listing", so I'd explain this inline.
    I have used the list's full name, which is probably more meaningful, and I've linked to listed building. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "19 cwt, 3 quarters and 6 lbs": an odd way to give the weight. No doubt this is in the source, but I'd just give it in whatever units a modern English person would use, with an approximate conversion to metric. You can keep the original, but it needs to be in modern units too. The quarter in particular is not a measurement most people have ever heard of; and the hundredweight is a different weight in the U.S. and Canada to the U.K. measure. I'd also suggest giving approximate metric and imperial measurements for the acres/roods/poles, and linking rood and pole. See MOS:UNITS and MOS:CONVERSIONS for details.
    Okay, I have converted these. The roods and poles aren't supported by the convert template, so I've had to do them manually, while I found a nifty little template called long ton designed for working with bell weights. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The bell weights look good. Any reason why you went with hectares for one of the land conversions but square metres for the other? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've converted them to hectares. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • I didn't know what a dole cupboard was until I looked it up. Is there an article that can be linked to for this? Perhaps something on ecclesiastical furniture or church architectural terms?
    I'm struggling to find an article with a definition... —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't oppose over this if there's no link. You might redlink it; up to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have redlinked and may create a stub at some point. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • The photo of the tomb of Sir Edward Carre mentions its mutilation by Puritans; you don't mention this in the article. Do your sources mention it?
    I've not seen any other mention of this and have checked Trollope, who describes it in detail but doesn't talk about any mutilations as far as I can see. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Page 131 of the Google Books edition of Trollope says the memorial is "said to have been mutilated during the Civil War"; I think that's good enough to cite. Incidentally, were you aware of this? Might be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well discovered. I have quoted Trollope in the article and cited the page. I am aware of the 1825 book; it's good, but Trollope seems to cover the noteworthy points and it is in that early Victorian antiquarian phase which makes me doubtful of its reliability. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    In the church itself there is a plaque next to the tomb saying this is what happened to it. If you like I can try to find out their source? --Errant (chat!) 13:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErrantX: I have included the information in the article now, so I am sure it is fine, but if there is anything else you can find, that would fantastic. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • You refer to Eleanor Peart's memorial as the "the 'heavy' slab"; what does that mean, and why the quotes?
    It's how Pevsner describes it. I think it's his polite way of saying that the design is perhaps too bold and not as fine as it could have been. I can remove it if you'd like? —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think we need to be clear what he means, or we can't use the description. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the "heavy" part. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

-- That's everything I can find. All the points are minor, and I expect to support once these issues are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I believe I have addressed all of these issues by these edits [4], although I haven't found an article offering a definition of dole cupboard, nor have I found mention of Puritans desecrating Carre's tomb; I also have a query about the last comment. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Mike Christie: okay, I feel I have addressed all of these concerns now, but do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks ever so much for the review, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for carrying out this review. All the best, --Noswall59 (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by Hchc2009[edit]

Not quite a support yet

  • "1 acre of woodland, 320 acres of meadow and 330 acres of marsh" - felt like it needed a metric equivalent.
    Done. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • There are quite a few instances where century is used as an adjective without a hyphen (compare "13th-century sources" and "a 14th century slab")
    I believe I have caught them all. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • What is a cantarist?
    I have replaced with "chantry priest" (chantry was linked earlier in the paragraph). —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • "There is a strong local tradition" - I wasn't sure what a "strong" local tradition was. Widely held? Possibly correct? etc.
    Changed to "widely held". —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • "As of 2015, regular church services are held on Sundays and Wednesdays..." - this is cited to the church's own site, so I don't think it is a reliable source in terms of backing up the claim that services are actually regularly held, or just regularly scheduled. (In reality they might often be cancelled, for example.)
    Changed to scheduled. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • "1809–1851 and 1851–82" - this seemed inconsistent in style
    It is and I have switched to the latter style, as per the MOS. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • "establishment of National Schools in Sleaford " - is the capitalisation correct here?
    I believe "school" should be lower-case, but National is derived from the National Society for Promoting Religious Education and I believe should be capitalised. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • I can't work out why some names have death dates after them, and not others. e.g. why "Sir Edward Carre, 1st Baronet (d. 1618)" or "Elizabeth Cooper (d. 1792)", but not "the Bishop of Lincoln, John Bokingham" (who died in 1339, btw)
    I have added the Bishop's death date. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • My concern was more general - why are some being given dates and not others? (e.g. " Bishop Alexander of Lincoln", "Samuel Green of London" etc.) I'd expect there either to be an implicit rule that the article is following (i.e. "dates are given if...") or to be consistent (i.e. everyone gets dates, or no-one gets dates). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hchc2009: Ah, I see. Well, I note that Pevsner records the death dates when he talks about tombstones and that makes sense, especially because many of the interesting monuments' subjects don't have articles. It would probably also be useful for architectural/art historians to place. As a result, I've made it so that death dates are only included for individuals with memorials. Does this make sense? —Noswall59 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Is "Pawley, Simon (1996), The Book of Sleaford, Baron Birch for Quotes Ltd" a high-quality reliable source? This is an open question, as I'm not familiar with the publishing house and can't find it on-line.
    Pawley has a doctorate from the School of Historical Studies at the University of Leicester and compiled his thesis on "Lincolnshire coastal villages and the sea c.1300 - c.1600 : economy and society" [5]. According to this document by Bishop Grosseteste University and published by the County Council, Pawley "is a former Chairman of the Lincolnshire Family History Society, Conference Committee and a former Vice-Chairman of that society, former Chairman and Treasurer of Friends of Lincolnshire Archaeology and sometimes acts as a historical consultant to North Kesteven District Council." I have taken him to be a pretty reliable source, although I cannot vouch for the publisher. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • The bibliography is inconsistent in style: some items have publisher and location, others just publisher.
    They now all have locations; I have also switched to ISBN-13 throughout. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • "The architectural historian Sir Nikolaus Pevsner states" -Pevsner died around 30 years ago, so I'd have put this in the past tense myself.
    Switched to the past tense and caught two others relating to Trollope. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hchc2009: I believe I have addressed all of your concerns through this edit [6], but do let me know if there is anything more to be done. Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • " illegible when he recorded it." when?
  • Sometime before he published his book in 1872... I've added "in or before 1872". —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • commemorated in St Denys' by a brass. Are we missing a noun, or is this common usage?
  • No, there is no missing noun. According to the OED: brass, a noun, is "Used elliptically for various things made of brass: esp. A sepulchral tablet of brass (or latten), bearing a figure or inscription, laid down on the floor or set up against the wall of a church." In other words, a monumental plaque made of brass can be called simply a "brass". If this is an issue, I can change it. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • If it's relatively common in british English usage, then it is not an issue. :-)
  • I didn't know "peal" was a group term for bells. Is it? That doesn't seem to jibe with peal. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peal can mean both the act of ringing the bells and, to quote the OED "A set of bells tuned to one another". —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • I have a request not strictly related to the current article and thus not formally a part of this FAC review, but as a polite appeal to your better nature, you'd be doing a service to us all if you'd create at least a stub for three-light window, which appears often in WP articles, but wait, what's a six-light window? Should there be some sort of umbrella term? Are "strainer arches, sometimes described as scissor arches" the same as the "Scissor truss" described at the bottom of our article on Timber roof truss?
  • Firstly, I am not sure articles on six-light, five-light, four-light etc. windows are really necessary. The word "light" in this context refers to "A window or other opening in a wall for the admission of light; specifically one of the perpendicular divisions of a mullioned window" (OED). So, it is basically the number of main divisions in these windows; I guess a definition may belong in window or mullioned window. Secondly, the strainer arch looks like this: [7]. It is made of stone, so probably shouldn't be linked to Timber roof truss, although structurally it is similar to the scissor truss shown in that article; instead, it really ought to have its own article or section of an article, so I've redlinked. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • "Roger the chaplain" admittedly this is a minor point, but Roger is not previously named, so...
  • There is no further information on him, the source simply says that the house belonged to "Roger the chaplain"; I have added "one" in front of his name, which implies that this is all we know about him. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi: thank you very much for the comments above, all of which I believe I have addressed in some form, but please see my replies. Let me know if there are any further changes you have in mind. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

  • Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ":7" defined multiple times with different content
  • As far as I can see, this was because they both contained the same content, which happens sometimes when using visual editor; I've removed the duplication. —Noswall59 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Do we want to put "speculative" before "reassessment, and put some sort of hedge word before the date 1086 in the lede? Noswall59 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so I have added speculative, although I feel it's a bit strong a word. I've also added "probably" before 1086 in the lead. —Noswall59 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Lingzhi: thanks once more for these comments, which I believe I have addressed through this edit. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

  • Thank you very much! All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • Thank you very much, @West Virginian: Your comments and support are very welcome and I wish you the best of luck with your church article. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2015 (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_article_candidates/St_Denys%27_Church,_Sleaford/archive1&oldid=1138472022"