Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Navenby

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 00:05, 19 April 2008.

Navenby[edit]

previous FAC (23:41, 8 March 2008)
Check external links

Self-nomination: This article was nominated for FA too early last time, but hopefully this time it might be OK. It has been through a Peer Review and has just achieved GA status after a lot of work over the past few weeks. All concerns with copyright on photographs has been cleared up since last time too, with official permission for all, except the ones taken by me, now held by Wikipedia. I am happy to do whatever work needed to get it through to FA, just tell me what to do! --seahamlass 17:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have replaced with cached version.
  • Who is behind http://www.research-lincs.org.uk/? The County?
  • http://www.swallowsbarn.co.uk/viking_way.htm what makes this a reliable source, it's a bed and breakfast site.
  • The Knight, Charles "Penny Cyclopedia" ref is lacking a publisher (it says 13 right now but the googlebooks link says it was self published? or was he a publisher?)
  • http://www.lincolncottage.co.uk/ToSee.aspx isn't a very good source for The city of Lincoln was very important at this time, as it was likely the capital of the late Roman Province of Flavia Caesariensis. In fact, I can't even see on that page anything about the roman capital I suspect a footnote got switched around somehow.
Okay, you replaced with http://www.roman-britain.org but who is behind this new site and what makes them a reliable source?
    • Have taken second ref out as well. The fact is actually referenced in the Navenby Archaeology ref after next sentence.
  • http://www.knightstemplar-uk.co.uk/Pentagram-Symbol,-Pentagram-Meaning,-Pentagram-Picture/114/Pentagram-Symbol.html what make this a reliable source for some (dubious) information that the Templars used the pentagram? I suggest running that past some of the editors of templar articles.That website's group, no matter what they claim, was not founded in 1118, and is probably just another group trading on the Templar myth. None of my historical books on the Templars mention the pentagram being used by them.
I looked at your sites, but none of them list the sources where they are getting their information. Just because there are websites saying it doesn't mean they are reliable sites. You're wanting scholarly books on this one, trust me. There is enough cruft out there about the Templars that you need ironclad sourcing for anything about the Templars. May I suggest you just drop second paragraph in the Folklore:Pentagram section as it's really not necessary for an article about a town.
done Have taken ref out and replaced with newspaper story confirming he was based at Cranwell etc plus book ref.
Have removed ref and replaced with two book refs
  • Current ref 21 "2001 2001 census statistics" says "Government" for the publisher. Which government?:
British - I've changed it
-Removed and replaced
Removed and replaced
Removed and replaced
Yes you are. However, despite going through the site, I couldn't find any reference to the building being Grade II listed (please feel free to correct me if I've overlooked it!) - hence my decision to cite another website as a reference - http://www.andersonandglenn.com/architecture2.htm .I have now added: http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=192469&mode=quick as well, but again this is not ideal, as it doesn't immediately refer to the building as Mrs Smith's Cottage....
The backed up ref works.
  • St Peter's In Debt gave me a server error.
Still OK for me
  • Is http://www.genuki.org.uk/ like the US websites Rootsweb, i.e. is it mostly done by volunteers? If so, I'm not sure it is a reliable source. It doesn't give the sources of its information.
Genuki is mentioned simply dozens of times by reputable sources, which are considered as reliable refs for Wikipedia. Hope this persuades you!
The Wikipedia description of GENUKI is this: "GENUKI is a genealogy web portal, run as a charitable trust. Its aim is "to serve as a "virtual reference library" of genealogical information that is of particular relevance to the UK & Ireland". The name derives from "GENealogy of the UK and Ireland"." I've seen the site quoted in many, many Wikipedia articles.
  • First: The head page for the GENUKI page says "The information provided by GENUKI must not be used for commercial purposes, and all specific restrictions concerning usage, copyright notices, etc., that are to be found on individual information pages within GENUKI must be strictly adhered to. Violation of these rules could gravely harm the cooperation that GENUKI is obtaining from many information providers and hence threaten its whole future." which leads me to believe they are recieving their information from many sources and people, kinda like a wiki
  • Two: The page you are using as a citation doesn't give it's sources. There is no author listed, unless it's the bit at the bottom "Last updated Louis R. Mills" who is the author.
  • Three: The page isn't designed as a history page, it's designed to help folks researching their ancestry find records.
Let's look at the specifics that you are using this page to source.
a) is the fact that there was a Roman's had a base or garrison in the village, or is it that the village was on the Roman Ermine Street? To be honest, you have a better source for both statements in the second ref on the sentence.
b) You then use it to reference that the town had charters from Edward the Confessor, William Rufus, and Richard II. But what the source says is not that it was MADE a market town by the charters, just that the market town HAD charters.
c) Your third statement ref'd to the page is "Parish records exist for Navenby from 1681, although Bishop's transcripts go back to 1562. The documents show the village hosted two annual fairs while operating as a market town, one on 17 October for farm animals, and the other a feast on the Thursday before Easter. Another popular event was a Hiring Fair for servants, which was held each May Day. Servants gathered to seek employment and were taken on for a period of one year." This is there as the bare facts on the page, but I don't see anything about the hiring fair being popular. Nor does it give the period of time the servants were hired for.
d) The next paragraph sourced to the webpage (and one subpage) is "The records also show that care of the poor was taken seriously in Navenby from at least 1772, when part of the parish was enclosed. Such was the significance of Navenby at this time that a workhouse for the parish poor was erected here, although this was later given over to other uses. A Sick Society was also founded in 1811, to provide for the frail and elderly, and a Parish School was built next to St Peter's Church by subscription in 1816. Following the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act, however, Navenby parish became part of the Lincoln Poor Law Union." But the page only gives a bare recitation of the facts, not the "show that the care of the poor was taken seriously from at least 1772". I do believe the first Poor Law in England dates from Elizabeth the First's reign, but I may be wrong. ** This paragraph refers to the Amended Poor Law Act - and, just to be certain, I've checked it out very, very carefully just now! --seahamlass 18:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And so forth, I could go on, but the main objection is that there is no source given for where this information comes from. Probably, it is from a local history, but we don't know. It's not designed to be used as a historical reference, it's there to help genealogists find records. It says so right on the front page "Virtual reference library of genealogical information" not historical information. It would probably squeak by for information about what records are still available, since that is its purpose. I'm not opposing the article based on its sources, I"m just commenting. But there is nothing wrong with citing a published book for an article. There will be published local histories that are reliable and would be perfect for use in this article. Try using This source which IS a historical work and is reliable. It is an online database of published histories. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All Genuki refs now dropped and replaced.--seahamlass 18:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lewis, Samuel and Mills Louis refs (current refs 23 and 24) They need publisher information.done
Still lacking publisher information for the Lewis, Samuel ref. Either "British History Online" or the original publisher of the book will work. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done using original publisher
  • While we're digging in the article, a recent change at MOS is that the block quotations aren't enclosed in the curly quotes. See WP:MOS#Quotations. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::** I can't really "prove" that www.raybeckham.co.uk is a reliable site, as Navenby is so small that it rarely attracts press attention and this website therefore hasn't been publicised. It is, however, cited on the official Navenby website, Navenby.net, as a place to go for extra information on the village. I really don't want to lose the information provided by these refs, but I can see the WP problem, so I have backed them up with book references - hopefully that is OK?--seahamlass 19:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

No, if you check the first page of his Navenby records site http://www.raybeckham.co.uk/village_map.html, you will see that he doesn't sell the pics on the website, but will provide pics if you want them and just asks for donations to charity. He is a local historian, living in Navenby, and this history part of this website is his project. The links in the article link directly to the information cited - not to the more commercial index you have listed.
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. It is all based on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. Hope this helps some. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the links all checked out using the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you use the Ray Beckham site as an external ref, now that you have the information sourced to other references? That way you don't have any issues. *Done: Done as suggested.
  • And one more. You're still using the templarmechanics site for the bit about the hellfire club. The other usage of it is backed up by a book, but the site is not going to be reliable for information on the Hellfire club connections. Definite progress though! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, done, done! Three book refs to replace the templarmechanics site.... Fingers crossed all done--seahamlass 22:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site Pastscape might help you with your Grade II building issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Ealdgyth. It didn't help me with one, but I got a great new ref for another that I wasn't even looking for!--seahamlass 19:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: OK, I've seen this article emmerge over the last few months from a troubled (but promising) stub to FAC, where we're at today. I really want this to pass FA this time round. Here's my comments/queries/challenges for now:
  1. Prose: The most striking need of this article is a good copy-edit by someone with fresh eyes; the content is all there in place, it just needs to be written slightly clearer in some cases. I'd recommend the aid of User:Malleus Fatuarum and/or User:Epbr123 (but can't guarantee they will help).
    Done: User:Malleus Fatuarum carried out a marathon session on it on April 13.
  2. Scope: I'm still concerned that the article discusses alot about nearby Lincoln, particularly in the "Sports and recreation" section. Of course it will have an impact upon Navenby, but the cultural/commericial link with the city isn't made clear enough in the article. Would it be accurate (and verifable) to say Navenby is a dormitory village for Lincoln perhaps?
    Done: The fact it is a dormitory village was already mentioned in the 'modern history' section, but I have explanded this slightly.
  3. Images: Not a barrier to FA by any means, but to my tastes and sensibilities, there are way too many images for the article. Less really can be more! For example, Manchester, a major metropolis has 5 images in History (compared with 6 for Navenby village), 1 vs 2 for Governance, 1 vs 4 for Geography, 3 vs 4 for Landmarks and so on.... Simillarly Neilston and Wormshill, both comparable village articles with FA status, each have just a few images distributed throughout, but retain sound presentation and context. I'd be inclined to reduce the number of images by at least a third, perhaps half.
    Done: I have removed 12 or 13 now - I think. Is that any better?
  4. There are a few gaps in knowledge under Governance. In this section we're missing stuff on how Navenby was governed between the Local Government Act 1888 and Local Government Act 1974; Was it part of a Rural District, Urban District or Municipal Borough during this time perhaps? Also, who was Navenby's first Member of Parliament, and when was he/she elected? These are important bites of information for readers.
    Done: Hope is OK?
  5. In Governance, we have images of houses that provide little context for the text they accompany. Perhaps this image could go there instead, with a caption that these are the parish boundary markers?
  • Done
  1. I'd remove the three sub-headings under Transport. They simply split up three paragraphs that could form a good single section.
    Done
  2. As above, I think it might be possible to rejig some the Geography section whereby some of the subheadings could go. Oldham tackles Geography well in my opinion, as does Wormshill.
  • Done: Got rid of three sub-headings

That's it for now. Hope these help. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Image:Navenbywitch.jpg and Image:Navstation.jpg both need to provide verifiable sources per WP:IUP. The latter, also, does not have adequate reasoning or information to support the claim of public domain. Assertion of "This picture is over 70 years old and out of copyright" is false, as PD is determined by date of first publication (not coming into existence), or, alternatively, by the life time of the author. When was this first published? Who was the author? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image Image:Navenbywitch.jpg has full permission for use in the public domain. This was granted by the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the official headed email with their permission has been lodged with Wikipedia. This is confirmed on the image page with the phrase: "The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system (2008032410019077)." I don't need a 'verifiable source' to prove this to you - Wikipedia has all the official documentation.
    • The image Image:Navstation.jpg is an old postcard. No author given. It was posted in around 1920, dating the card to this time. Copyright expires on photos after 70 years in Britain. The author of this picture is quite obviously deceased, as even if they were 25 when this picture was taken, they would be 113 now. Also, as far as I can be sure, photos are considered in the public domain in America if published before 1923 - so this just sqeaks in. --seahamlass 18:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comments critically. Indicating source has nothing to do with copyright status. Copyright status is not in question for Navenbywitch. You don't have to prove anything "to me"; you do, however, have to be civil and follow image policy.
Regarding Navstation, that information needs to be articulated on the image page. You're using a US PD tag, so the British criterion is irrelevant. Publishing in 1920 indeed qualifies it for PD, but that information is absent from the image page. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if I sounded a bit tetchy, then sorry. The pics on this page have already been scrutinised from here to kingdom come, and back again. (During a GA review, when an over-zealous editor speedily deleted half and they had to be put back by an admin after emailed agreements for use was provided by all in triplicate...well, virtually). It was your remark: "Assertion of "This picture is over 70 years old and out of copyright" is false," that annoyed me, as it sounded as if you were accusing me of lying. Which I'm not. I have just added what I wrote here to the image pages of the photos. I really hope that makes the WP:IUP thingy OK.--seahamlass 19:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seahamlass, Elcobbola is very knowledgeable about image policy, and as the author of a featured article, is also anxious to help you succeed at FAC. Whatever went on pre-FAC at GAC, peer review, or anywhere else is secondary here; we must examine all issues at FAC thoroughly. Please work with Elcobbola, as he is most knowledgeable in this area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seahamlass, apologies if remarks were misinterpreted. "Lying" involves deliberate intent to deceive or misinform, which I certainly did not believe to be the case. "False" only means incorrect; there is no connotation of intent. That notwithstanding,the source has been provided for "Witch" and a date of publication for "station"; that is all that was needed. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Obviously a lot of love gone into this article, and I've done some copyediting on it myself today. But I do have a few concerns still:
  • I agree with Jza84's comment (above) that there are too many images. It would help the article a lot if you trimmed them down to those that really add value to the article. I'd say that about half of them ought to go.
  • Done: I've taken out 12 or 13 now
  • I'm unhappy especially about the images in Culture and community which seems largely to be an advert for the three public houses in the village. "It ... serves real ale and home-cooked food ... It has a garden and restaurant and the traditional pub game of Table Skittles can be played here.
  • Done: I have 'revamped' this section and removed the "serves real ale.... and table skittles" bits. Have to agree, did sound rather like an advert. Now the paragraph just concentrates on the history of the pubs instead, and the fact they are Grade II listed etc. Have also removed the pix of the pubs, as per your suggestion.
  • From the Folklore subsection: "The pentagram includes the nearby villages of Temple Bruer – which has strong connections with the Knights Templar of the 12th century – as well have nearby Wellingore and Harmston." I've got no idea what that means. As well have? What's the significance of the pentagram? If there isn't any, then why include it? If there is, then why not explain it?
  • Sorry, that should have read 'as well as' not 'as well have'. I've changed it.
  • There are too many short subsections in Culture and community. Does it need any at all?
  • Done: I have fiddled round with this, and removed all the subsections per your suggestion, so now just one section.
  • "Navenby, originally an agricultural village, became a market town on receiving charters from Edward the Confessor, William Rufus and Richard II of England, during the Middle Ages." I've been wondering what that means all afternoon. Did it become a market town several times, losing that status between kings, or what?
  • Done: Changed the sentence
  • "The wide main street, which now doubles as Navenby High Street, is lasting evidence of its market town status." Doubles as Navenby High Street? What does that mean? And why is a wide street evidence of anything other than, well, a wide street?
  • Done: Added reason for width - driving flocks of sheep to market requires wide roads, and took out "doubles as."

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Comments. I'm tipping towards support now (well done for being brutal with the images btw;-)), just a few further points:[reply]

  • "The Saxon name for Navenby has not survived ...". Does that mean it's unknown?
  • Yes. Changed it to say that to say not known.
  • "The Vikings exerted considerable influence over Lincolnshire from the 9th century ...". From the 9th century until when?
  • Changed to say "in the 9th and 10th centuries"
  • "People aged between 25 and 44 represent the largest majority in Navenby ...". There can't be a largest majority, a majority is a majority.
  • Changed to: "People aged between 25 and 44 represent the majority of Navenby residents."
  • "... a purpose-built visitor centre, used for exhibitions about Navenby and of local interest." Doesn't read quite right. " ... Navenby and the local area"?
  • Changed to: "for exhibitions about Navenby and the local area."
  • From the lead: "Navenby became a market town on being granted its charters by Edward the Confessor, William Rufus and Richard II of England." Can you make this match what the body of the article now says?
  • Done Same words as main piece now.
--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know whether I missed this the first time around or whether it popped up while revisiting images, but left-aligned images should not be placed under level 2 (===) headers (see WP:MOS#Images). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I jiggled the pix around today - getting rid of 14 - so you probably came across this after my major crash and burn job. I think I've corrected this now, but please let me know if I haven't.--seahamlass 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm coming round to supporting this article. I'm still worried about this Lincoln link. Could something about this be put into the lead about it being a dorm village for Lincoln perhaps? It's not a condition for FA, I just happen to think this would help. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Support. A well-written and well-researched article on a small English village. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per Malleus. Hits the spot for me too. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are the culture and economy/media sections near the end, and the transport section earlier. It seems to me like 'transport' is more a minor, infrastructure-related topic, and should be de-emphasized in the order of sections. On the other hand, culture and economy are far more important when describing a city, town, or region, and should be placed far earlier in the order of sections. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done: I have moved the economy/media section up, and the sport/transport down, using the Featured Article Wormshill on which to base where I placed each section.--seahamlass 15:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs fresh eyes to sift through carefully. Here are random examples:

  • "Navenby returned to being the rural village it had been before"—eeuw, "N returned to being a rural village."
  • Done: Changed as suggested
  • "Evidence suggests that Navenby was a significant staging point along Ermine Street; the Romans are reported to have maintained a small base or garrison in the village. A possible Romano-British temple and some burial sites have been unearthed in the village.[6][4]" Still don't like explicit mention of "evidence", generally. Here, it's repetitious; why not: "Navenby was probably a significant staging point along Ermine Street – the Romans are reported to have maintained a small base or garrison in the village,[2] and a possible Romano-British temple and some burial sites have been unearthed in the village.[6][4]" Are the burial sites possibly Romano-British too? If so, remove the fuzzy "some".
  • Done: I have removed the 'fuzzy' word 'some.' Agree it was unecessary. I have left in the word 'evidence,' however, as the finds unearthed by archaeologists at the site are classed as evidence, but I have chopped and changed these sentences a bit.
  • "Parish records exist for Navenby from 1681, although bishop's transcripts go back to 1562."—plural bishops'? Replace "although" with "and"? "hosted several annual fairs"—you mean several each year, or annual fairs in several years (1732, 1741 and 1750)?
  • Done: Swapped to plural bishops - bishops' Added 'each year' after "hosted several annual fairs"

Tony (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The presentation of many of the citations still needs to be improved to meet 2c of the criteria for my support. In particular, many of the titles used in the citations are editorial descriptions, rather than the given title of the source; this is misleading. Some dates are still abitrarily given where none or a different one is given on the source itself. The references for radio stations are just websites and don't mention Navenby. Publisher/author names are a little arbitrary too. I'm not a fan of "Suchandsuch.com website"; you wouldn't cite "The Times newspaper", for example. This is a big article and doing very well, so don't be too surprised that there are a lot of details to fix to get it to a polished standard. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK - all book refs are now standardised - I hope. I have gone through them all, but getting tired and blurry now.. Will do net refs tomorrow.
  • Done: Standardised the source titles on the web references. Hopefully I haven't missed any out.
  • I'll try something. I am amazed at the referencing and the amount of info. I was just thinking of some minor points and one not so minor. Minor first, parish council and county council need not necessarily be capitalised. I'm not quite sure on the RoadGhosts.com part in the actual naming of a website but...
  • I have lower capped parish council, per your suggestion, as it didn't actually name the parish council involved, just referred to it as an organisation. However, I have kept North Kesteven District Council capped up, as that is the actual name of the council. Thanks for spotting that.

A slightly more serious point is, do you have a source for the population (maybe link it to the right page on the ONS)...? Simply south (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done: I've added this one [[1]], as it is from the Government, so verifiable and reliable etc. Hope this is OK?
  • Comment: I would prefer to see a little more in the governance section about the civil parish and its antecedents, and more about its ecclesiastical history (with respect to its ecclesiastical parish.) My source is Youngs, F. A. (1991). Guide to the Local Administrative Units of England. (Volume 1: Northern England). London: Royal Historical Society. ISBN 0861931270.
    Civil parish: In addition to the information you have already included, Navenby civil parish boundaries were adjusted in 1931 to include the entire civil parish of Skinnand, and no other boundary changes in modern times have been recorded. (Youngs book, page 273) This could also be referenced in the Topography section, as it is the means by which the civil parish increased in size (Youngs book is an authoritative source for boundary changes around this time.) The GenUKI entries for Navenby and Skinnand also give some more information of unknown reliability and validity, but a better source should be found than it if any of this information were to be included.
    Poor Law Union and Rural Sanitary District: Both Navenby and Skinnand had been placed in the Lincoln Poor Law Union in 1834, and they were also part of the Lincoln Rural Sanitary Districts. I suggest these go in the Governance section, as they were connected with the parishes, and succeeded by the local government changes which brought in rural districts. (Youngs book, pages 247, 273, and 278.) The GenUKI entries with the same caveat as mentioned previously also give more information.
    Ecclesiastical parish: The article would be improved by adding material about its ecclesiastical status and history. The same Youngs book, same pages, states that Navenby ecclesiastical parish is in the Diocese of Lincoln, and that it was in Longoboby Rural Deanery until 1968 when it was transferred to Graffoe Rural Deanery.(Youngs book, pages 247, 273.) The Skinnand part of the current ecclesiastical parish had made the transfer from Longoboby Rural Deanery to Graffoe Rural Deanery in 1884. (Youngs book, page 278.) Again, the GenUKI entries with the same caveat as mentioned previously give more information.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just got back from 440-mile journey...so blurry eyed and shattered. Will look at this tomorrow. I really liked all the GENUKI stuff on Navenby and quoted quite a lot originally, but had to remove it as not a reliable source. I'll hit the books in the morning. --seahamlass 19:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's still plenty you can add without going to the GENUKI site (which I agree is not really suitable to use as a source, but could be useful to use as a means to guide searches through reliable sources). I've given you a reasonable amount that could be added without searching further, as I've provided full references from a reliable source for much I what I suggested anyway. I think it would add to an article that is already good.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Either I have overdone it with the champagne or there is something seriously wrong with this sentence: "The road runs between the neighbouring villages of Boothby Graffoe and Wellingore and covers more than 2,100 acres (8.5 km²)." Waltham, The Duke of 06:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have forgotten to mention that the sentence in question is in the intro. I have also done some copy-editing in the history section; there were a couple of minor errors but nothing significant. I am now moving further down. Waltham, The Duke of 06:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just swapped that sentence around - it was rather confusing!
  • You think? :-D Well, that just serves as an example to show how important fresh eyes are, I suppose... Waltham, The Duke of 10:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first paragraph after the block quote in the Governance section is not quite correct, and the cited reference doesn't actually verify what is written at that point, and neither does the Youngs book, which I used to make my previous comments. The text currently reads "Navenby was classed as an ancient and civil parish from the 11th century, until England’s break with Rome in the mid-16th century.[33]" The web-based reference (correctly) states that Navenby was an Ancient Parish, and that it is a civil parish, but the two periods of this don't coincide, and nothing is mentioned in the web reference or Youngs book about any break from Rome or the time at whicjh the terms "ancient parish" or "civil parish" came to an end. In fact, civil parishes only came into being after the reforms in Local Government in the nineteenth century. "Ancient parish" is the term generally used to describe the old parishes of England which combined together civil and ecclesiastical administrative duties. Following the Dissolution of the Monasteries (the split with Rome, that the passage mentioned), these parishes took on some of the duties (care for the poor, etc) that the monastaries and other religious institutions, then abolished, had had. Over time, more administrative duties were given to the parishes until in 1889, the Interpretation Act completely separated the two kinds of functions, bringing civil parishes into existence. [[Eccesiastical parish]es is the term used for the purely religious unit. I've taken this from a number of sources, some of which are specific to Cheshire, but a general-purpose reliable source which contains all the necessary information would be the book: Winchester, A. (2000). Discovering parish boundaries. Princes Riseborough: Shire Publications Ltd. ISBN 0747804702. pages 5–20. (including chapters with titles "What is a parish?" and "Ancient Parishes".) I suggest a change in wording along the lines of "Navenby was an ancient parish, which began to take on civil duties as well as ecclesiastical duties from the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the Tudor Poor Law Acts onwards. It is now the centre of a civil parish and an ecclesiastical parish." (You can cite the Youngs book, page 245 and 273 for the last sentence. For the bit about the Tudor Poor Law Acts, you can cite the Winchester book, page 7.) I can make these changes for you, if you want, but I thought it was important to describe why they were needed here.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Support: The article is well-written and its coverage is comprehensive and factually accurate.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2008 (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/Navenby&oldid=1126595465"