Talk:St Rufus Church/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could I recommend starting with what it is rather than its origins? You could also mention the fact it replaced another church a little earlier. (Did that church have a name?) How about opening with something like "St Rufus Church, also known as Keith Parish Church, is a Church of Scotland church in Keith, Moray. It was built in the style of [blah] in [year] by [person] as a replacement for the existing village church, [Name]."
What is "Old Keith"? Is that any different from Keith? (I see this is explained in the following sentences, but maybe this needs to be brought to the forefront. If you moved the history section first and included all the stuff about the old church and Old and New Keith there, that may be one way to structure things...)
"of Gillespie Graham's work" I'd introduce and link him here, rather than relying on the link in the lead.
recessed and traceried come across as jargon; could we have wikilinks or explanations? gallery, too. And cornicing. And gable.
I've started making some changes - I think what I've done addresses the points above this comment, will look at the next ones ASAP. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that something has come up at work, I'll not be able to look at this further until the weekend, but will definitely get onto it then. Timing is everything... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry at all. Let me know when you're done and I'll take another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"was removed during the old church's demolition and installed within one of the walls of St Rufus Church, serving as a memorial to James Duncan, a church elder who died in 1970" The tenses are a bit funny here - presumably it didn't originally serve as a memorial? Or was the old church only demolished on or after 1970? (Again, an earlier history section setting up the relationship between the churches could have been useful here.)
Reworded to say that it now serves as a memorial to him.
Are James/John Oglivy worth wikilinking? How about Milton Tower? Don't be scared of redlinks.
I've linked Milton Tower. I'm not sure about the Ogilvys - if I could track down exactly who it was this might work, but they were one of the major families of Moray for hundreds of years - this would require quite a lot of digging even with the Milton Tower link (if I know anything about Scottish noble families, there were probably generations of them all called John and/or James!). I might circle back to this if I get round to writing about the tower though - I don't like red links, they feel like unfinished business.
"36.6 metres (100 ft)" Is that false precision? What does your source say?
So, here's the oddity. The source (Pevsner) says 36.6 metres - it doesn't give the height in feet. I am certain that they have simply converted the value in feet for their publication, but that's the actual number they give. What else to do other than stick with the source and convert for our American readers?
Great, no objection. Maybe it genuinely is 36.6m... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are "ashlar gate piers" and "carriage gates"?
I intend at some point (perhaps this summer) to sit down with a couple of architectural guides and write a bunch of short articles that will allow me to blue-link terms like this. Ashlar is smoothly carved stone - it's linked to earlier in the section, I can stick another one in if that would help. Gate piers are the vertical bits that you attach gates to. Carriage gates are wide double gates that you can drive a horse and carriage through. Do you think this is too jargony, should I make this more descriptive (e.g. 'wide double gates made of cast iron')?
Yes; I think spelling it out would be great if we don't have a wikilink. If ashlar's linked earlier, that's fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the history section: I'd definitely like to hear more about the old church. Generally, the article seems heavy on architecture and light on history/religion.
This is probably fair comment. I'll take a bit of time over the weekend to see what else I can dig up history-wise - I agree that a bit of background about the old church would be beneficial.
What makes the Masons Marks Project a reliable source? (Other than that, happy enough with the sources and won't quibble about formatting...)
Mmm. You've got me there - it does look a it ropey and self-published; on the other hand, I think that it's probably an 'expert' SPS, and contains information that would probably be hard to come by elsewhere. Let me look to see whether I can see any scholarly citations to it. I won't be too gutted if we can't include it, but it seemed like an interesting little nugget that would be worth retaining if we can.

That's what jumps out at me from a first look. Images seem fine. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, thanks - that all looks reasonable and doable, I'll try to get onto it tomorrow or in the next few days. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn I've addressed most of these points, but will take some time at the weekend to dig a bit deeper into the history of the original church - I'll let you know when that's done. cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn I've expanded the history section a bit now, including what details I was able to find about the old church. There's a bit more detail I could go into about old churchyard, since there are apparently some notable monuments still there, but I thought that would be a bit off-topic in an article about the new church. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the Mason's Mark Project, I found this which seems to suggest that the project is supported by the archaeology service of Aberdeenshire Council. Looking around at other stuff, I think it's a legitimate academic project, albeit one probably run on a shoestring budget. It's not something I'd rely on for contentious claims obviously, but it doesn't seem too bad for an assertion about a stonemason having worked on the church; if you're concerned though I'll cut it. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with that description of the Mason's Mark Project. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little copyediting of your new additions (please double-check) and replied to a few things above. The only other thing I will say is that I'd probably go for two short paragraphs for the lead, but one paragraph is definitely OK, so your call! I'll have another quick look through the article when you make any final changes, but I think we should be good. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn thanks. The only thing I'm not sure about is saying that Rufus went to spread Roman Catholicism - he was from Ireland, and while his mission took place after the Synod of Whitby, I'm not certain whether the flavour of Christianity he would have been spreading would be better described as Roman or Celtic. Might it be safer just to say 'Christianity'? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. I do think there needs to be some acknowledgement of a change, though, as this is now a COS church, but the old church predates the COS. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, fair point - ill draft something tomorrow about the reformation. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting aside Crikey. Have just been doing a bit of reading about Milton Tower - definitely enough for an article, which I'm going to draft - one possible contender for the inscription on the sacrament house would be John Ogilvie, who was born there. If I can confirm a connection, then I think that a blue link would definitely be in order! Unfortunately, everyone else in his family appears to have been called John, and I can't find a date for the sacrament house. Something to come back to, perhaps... GirthSummit_(blether) 19:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... Somebody must know... Josh Milburn (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  J Milburn, someone must indeed know, but I haven't found anything about it yet. I have managed to turn Milton Tower blue though :) GirthSummit _(blether) 15:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that wasn't me saying you need to find it... It was me sharing your frustration! Great to see the Milton Tower article. Illustrated, no less! You're just long enough for a DYK nomination, so I hope you'll nominate it there. I'm also very happy to see the addition of an image of the old church on this article. Let me just have a last look through; hopefully promoting imminently. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm happy. I'll give you a last chance to double-check my final edits, but if you're happy, I'll promote. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, thanks - yes, agree with all your edits, much appreciated. I popped in a DYK for Milton Tower too, cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great; promoted. Pleasure working with you again. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, likewise - thanks again. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be Johnny-come-lately, but I just expanded the history section a bit. I hope that doesn't get the article de-listed :-) Please feel free to revert any/all of it. Thanks, JM and GS for getting this up to GA! Levivich 01:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I added an OSM map; my first time using that template. Not sure if that's a keeper. Levivich 02:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I suspect we'll warm to the OSM template as more and more articles start to include them. I agree that, right now, it looks a little odd... Josh Milburn (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the streetmappyness of the OSM template maps that is distracting, specifically the street name and route number labels. I like it a little better when it's in [Full screen] mode. Even better though is the way the maps are presented on this website, with multiple map backgrounds (modern, historical, etc.). The historical map used there is this 1870s map (here's another from 1969), both of which are nice, but I'm not sure they can be used because apparently these Ordnance Surveys are CC-BY-NC. A map showing the location of the church vis-a-vis the river and the old church, New Keith, Old Keith, etc., seems like it'd be very helpful for the reader. Haven't looked too much into whether there's a better map background that can be used for the OSM template (or uploaded and used with the old map location template). Levivich 08:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 1870s and even 1969 OS maps are (apparently) in the public domain; see {{PD-OldOS}}. As such, we shouldn't be worried about using them if we prefer them. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, we have a template for that :-) I think I'll take a shot at marking up the 1870s map to highlight the relevant locations and uploading it. Levivich 21:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]