Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed buildings in Coventry/archive1

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

The list was promoted by NapHit 17:30, 21 October 2012 [1].

Grade I listed buildings in Coventry[edit]

Grade I listed buildings in Coventry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another labour of love of mine, but not one quite so extensive as the field marshals who passed FLC last month. The list is actually a bi-product of the target list I dre up for "Wikipedia Takes Coventry", a photography contest held in the city at the beginning of September. Coventry is oft thought of as a concrete jungle, but it has a rich and fascinating history. Hopefully this list will go some way towards changing that perception.

Any comments or constructive criticisms are most welcome, but it may take me a few days to reply. If I seem to have neglected something, please do ping my talk page. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just a quick comment on the gallery - it would be good to add another image to balance the two rows rather than have the white space on second row. Keith D (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was slightly afraid of adding that gallery for precisely this reason. All the images are on row on my screen (a 17 inch laptop), but I know the appearance of the gallery will change with screen size. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Images need to have alt text per WP:ALT; it should briefly explain the contents of them
    • Done. The captions are sufficient in most cases, but yes, we need to accommodate for screen readers.
  • Unlink listed building per WP:OVERLINK
    • I think the link has value—only Brits will be familiar with the concept, and I'd wager that not many of them fully understand it.
  • "Only around four per cent" Remove "only" per WP:NPOV
    • That's not POV. I think "only" is quite justified when talking about 4%.
  • Speaking of that sentence, change "around" to "about" or something like that
    • Why?
  • In that same sentence, per cent shouldn't be spaced; should be "percent"
    • Wiktionary says "per cent" is acceptable, and the source also uses that variation.
  • "15th centuries" and "11th (CE) century" don't have hyphen, whereas "14th-century" does. Which is it?
    • When the phrase is used to describe something (eg 14th-century original), it becomes a compound adjective and thus requires a hyphen; used as a noun phrase, it doesn't need one. Or to put it another way, I'm better at writing articles than lists.
  • "List of buildings" → "Buildings", as for title header
  • Tables don't meet MOS:ACCESS, it has scope cols, but not scope rows, need to add scope rows also, to first one in each point of table
  • Also, tables don't meet MOS:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does; it has been listed as a "high priority"
    • Likewise.
      • Done myself. Also, see above. TBrandley 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a period dot to "Ref"
    • Done.
  • Just a suggestion, but I would align the references in that table to the center, don't feel like you have to though
    • That's actually quite a good idea, but with the column being so narrow, I don't think it makes a significant difference.
      • Thanks! That's okay then. TBrandley 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe a gallery section is needed. In fact, there is a policy which states that they shouldn't be here, but at Wikimedia Commons. See WP:IG, etc.
    • That policy says "[...] the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." But I'll consider Hassocks' suggestion below and get back to you.
  • Why are red links in the see also section? Remove them.
    • Because they're notable, article-worthy subjects that will have articles in the near future. But you have a point, and I've hidden them until the links are blue.
  • In fact, I don't think that section is needed at all
    • I disagree.
  • Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order

TBrandley 23:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:Quick comment
  • Dormer Cottage is Grade II, not Grade I. The city council list has an error.
    • Interesting. I couldn't find the National Heritage List entry for Dormer Cottage to reconcile the contradiction. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place; thanks.
  • I find the justification for including Coombe Abbey weak. The building is not within the boundary of the city, so it is out of the scope of the list, in my view; the scope of the list is geographic, not based on ownership.
    • I include it because the Council mention it on their list, and so I think it's worthy of noting here, and including it in the list with an explanatory note is probably the neatest way of doing it.
  • In relation to images, consider adopting the format used here. This avoids the need for a gallery.
    • I'll consider it. I'm hesitant, because I'm not sure the images are useful at a low enough resolution to fit comfortably into the table.
  • Having a couple of sentences of notes about the building (as in the example above) would also be beneficial, even though each entry does have its own article. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've hit the nail on the head—each entry has its own article, which contains more information than can be squashed into the table, so I'm not sure there's a lot to be achieved from adding details into the table. I generally prefer to keep prose and tables separate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More comments from Hassocks:
  • In relation to making the Ref column unsortable, this code should work: ! scope="col" class="unsortable"
    • This is, I believe, done.
  • As per TRM's note below, I am still troubled by the inclusion of Coombe Abbey, as it is already legitimately included within Grade I listed buildings in Warwickshire. I would be happy with your suggestion of adding a note below the main table explaining the situation. I have faced the similar scenarios when doing various lists—e.g. listed buildings that have been demolished but not delisted, buildings that may or may not have been churches etc—and a short explanatory paragraph at the end does the job.
    • I've taken it out of the table and added a note to the lead.
  • I'll have another look after you've had a go at the images column. I also have a strong desire to see a notes blurb/column, as TRM says below. I will check back when I can, but unfortunately I only have internet access at work for the time being (I have moved house and the new internet connection is not ready yet – could be a while!). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


More from Hassocks, following the resolution of the above

  • All of my earlier points are resolved to my satisfaction. Re Peter's comments below: I agree with the use of a separate "Refs" column rather than integrating them into the body of the Notes. Although both styles have proven to be acceptable at FLC, I find having a separate column is more appropriate for the reasons given by the nominator. I too prefer decimal coordinates over grid references, but HJ's rationale for using the latter is sound.
  • I have spotted something else though. I fear that some of the details described in the Notes column—particularly those not directly related to the architecture of the building—are not actually referenced at the moment, in that they are not mentioned in the refs provided. For each building, the Cov city council list and the National Heritage List description are used to reference the content of the row. I spot-checked certain entries (I have not checked all). Examples: for St John the Baptist Church, Coventry, neither source mentions the bit about "sent to Coventry". For St Mary's Hall, again the Mary, Queen of Scots part is in neither cited source. I think we really need citations for all these bits (not that I doubt their veracity, I should add). At a guess, various pages of the Victoria County History should help to support all/most of the historical/social facts in the blurbs; or perhaps the Ian Soden book cited in the lead. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose
  • I do think it's a shame we can't add a summary of what each building's purpose/notability is here, I made a similar comment at the Maidstone FLC currently running. I know there are articles for each building, but for our featured material to be heavily reliant on sub-articles seems a real shame. I think a model more like Listed buildings in Widnes is appropriate. Our FLs expand for "listed buildings" and "churches" so why not "Grade I listed buildings"?
  • " in the City of Coventry" is it necessary to say "the City of"? And if you insist, should City really be capitalised?
    • City of Coventry is the proper name of the metropolitan borough. -HJ
  • I think the article could legitimately link Coventry, while a common geographical term to us English, perhaps not so for our global audience.
    • I agree. I believe linking in the bold title is discouraged, but I'll see if I can work a link in elsewhere. -HJ
  • "There are 20 Grade I " vs "Of the 21 buildings on this list..."
    • The list includes Coombe Abbey, which owned by Coventry City Council but falls just the wrong side of the city boundary. I'm open to the possibility of removing Coombe Abbey if multiple people really think it's confusing or out of scope. -HJ
  • If you use ref 1 every time, just have it as a general reference.
  • "St. Mary's Priory" is a dab link.
  • Ref column shouldn't be sortable.
    • I'm really not very proficient with tables. Could I trouble you to explain how I remove the sortability, or even demonstrate for the benefit of the II* listed buildings which will be making an appearance here at some point? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add a column for the image of each place rather than that rather unsightly gallery at the end.
    • I seem to be in a minority on this issue, so I'll work the images into the table, much as I think the gallery is better. -HJ
  • You should link all linkable items every time in a sortable table (e.g. Bayley Lane).
    • That's the first time I've heard that, but I suppose it makes sense—it just goes against every instinct I've had drilled into me at FAC! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC) OK, images worked into the table (I still the the gallery was better, but I'll concede the point) and descriptions added. I think all the rest of your comments have been addressed by myself or Rock drum. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments (but leaning towards Support) What a vast improvement since the initial nomination! At that time it was an OK list, with nothing special about it to take it into the featured category. I did not oppose at the time because I also had a list nominated, and did not wish to seem to be in any sort of competition. But Hassock's suggestions, and your implementation of them, have made all the difference (Hassocks has been a mentor to me too). Just a few queries for my own interest, which are not likely to make any difference to my giving support.
  • Why have a separate column for Refs? They are not that important, and could easily follow the text in the Description column (this was asked of me in one of my nominations, and I now do this)
  • I was also advised to centre the date column, (I guess to make it look more elegant).
  • Why do you use GRs rather than coordinates? The latter seem to be more the standard way to give locations in WP; they are also more understandable to non-UK readers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I dislike replying inline and making a mess of a relatively short list of queries so I'll address them here:
  • The refs are in a separate column because it's not just the text that's being referenced, it's the entire row—the date of construction, the location, the grid reference, and the very fact the building is Grade I listed. It's also more aesthetically pleasing, at least in my opinion.
  • I centred the date column, though the difference is almost imperceptible.
  • OS Grid references are more commons in the UK, and are used in official contexts, such as by the Ordnance Survey. They're also documented on the National Heritage List for England entries, so there's no guesswork or original research involved in pinning down coordinates. By highlighting a square, rather than a specific point, grid references avoid the problem of having coordinates that point to an arbitrary location or, for example, the centre of a large property. And I don't think latitude and longitude means anything more to the average reader than a grid reference—the main benefit of including either (imo) is for the clickthrough to the GeoHack tool, which actually turns the string of characters into a location on a map. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 15 October 2012 (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_list_candidates/Grade_I_listed_buildings_in_Coventry/archive1&oldid=1138480224"