Talk:Wells Cathedral

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wells Cathedral article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 90 days

Wells Cathedral is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 7, 2014.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 13, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
November 20, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed
February 23, 2014	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Somerset High‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture High‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Anglicanism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Historic sites Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

TFA, 23 October 2024

Hi Rodw, Amandajm and any page watchers/stewards. I'm thinking of running this as TFA on 23 October - the 785th anniversary of its consecration. The article looks in okayish shape, but does show some signs of an ageing article, with some recent edits leaving a wp:Proseline feel in a couple of places and one or two unsupported statements in place. Does anyone feel like giving this a quick blast to polish away any cobwebs so it is suitable for the main page? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - it has instead had a going over with a sandblaster; some of this should probably be reversed! Much inaccurate brandishing of policy names, false titles introduced, and so on. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Feel free to reverse or correct any mistakes you feel have been made. Z1720 (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it with me for a bit. You would not realise that this is one of the most significant wotks of architecture of the |Gothic period from its current state. Amandajm (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have just looked at what has been done.

I am aghast. Amandajm (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversals to changes.

Please excuse my typos, pending durther eye surgery.

I have reversed the edits by Z1720 (talk). as having been made in igmorance of the subject they were editing, and under the impression that the many small galleries of pics were repetitious, I suppose.

The status of Wells Cathedral, architecturally, is that it is one of the most important and innovative Gothic buildings in the World. It breaks new ground. It sets the pattern for how the Gothic arch could be developed in a more advanced way than anything in France at the time. The architect totally 'got' the potential to which the pointed arch could be used.... and the next chap was even able to do it three-dimensionally.

I have looked through the pics and .... OK, maybe I have been too kind in not removing someones's extra pic of the St Andrew's cross arch ..... but removing them altogether , which was the way I found it... and reducing the main view of the most innovative nave in England to a thunbnail...... is going too far!

Maybe we do need only one misericord! But then again, the claim is made that they are one of the finest sets in Britain so reoresenting four distinctly different types might be justifiable, unless we produce a separate article rather than a subheading.

Everything at Wells Cathedral is significant.

Amandajm (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: noting WP:FA? #1e. SerialNumber54129 20:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- namely "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; ...." - well, these changes, which only affect the images, are "in response to the featured article process" - see section above. There have actually been two edits over 2 weeks or more, leaving the article more or less where it began. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Noting that 1e does not concern itself with how different versions of the article are, but the volume and speed of the edits in between them; also known as precisely the point I was bleeding making!SerialNumber54129 12:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, it was? Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated a copyedit of the article because I nominated it for WP:TFA for October 23. The scheduling co-ordinator for October, SchroCat, mentioned that the article needed a copyedit, and I agree. Much of what I removed was, in my opinion, promotional language, off-topic information that compared Wells Cathedral to other architecture, excess description, merging one-paragraph sections or uncited information. A large amount of images make the page hard to load for some readers and too much detail discourages people from reading the article. I encourage editors to read through the prose and decide what should be included in this article and how it can be improved. If editors think the article is FA quality as-is, I encourage them to bring it to WP:FAR so that the community can determine if this article still meets the featured article criteria. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"in my opinion" being the crucial point here. As I said in the section above, I thought you had considerably overdone it in both areas, though some trimming would be justified. But it was better to revert the lot than leave it all. Most of what you removed was there when the article passed FAC in 2014 I think. The FAC (in which I did not participate) was long and detailed, and the reviewers did not share your concerns, one specifically praising the use of lots of images, and so on. I think this is not your normal area of editing, and it shows in remarks like "promotional language, off-topic information that compared Wells Cathedral to other architecture, excess description...". The "promotional language" bit is typical of the misuse of policy links I noted above. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the removals, although they were well intentioned (myself and Z1720 ⋅have worked a lot together in FAR over the recent past). I think there is confusion with architectural language and puffery. The language removed imo was descriptive using standard terms; on that basis I don't think a FAR is warranted, unless we invent a new speak for describing buildings. Ceoil (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]