Comments
- "He was born in in"
- restoring – Again, no Easter egg links please.
- I've unlinked all the "Victorian restoration" links, and deleted the explanatory footnote. This issue is not essential for the list and seems to create more heat than light.
- "Towards the end of the period covered by this list" – Not strictly objectionable, but I think this type of self-reference is poor style, when it can be avoided.
- "Cumberland (now Cumbria)" and "parts of which are now Greater Manchester" – Please avoid using the word "now" in this fashion.
- "This list contains the ecclesiastical works Paley undertook during the time he was the sole principal in the practice, between 1856 and 1868." – I have a bit of a problem with the fact that I have to read through four paragraphs before being told what the article's scope is.
- Moved to earlier in the lead
- Lead picture (St Peter's Church, Bolton): Why this one, and not one or two of those actually mentioned in the lead? I think there's also potential for more inspiring captions.
- I had difficulty in finding an image of good enough quality to demonstrate Paley's work adequately at the top of the article. This church is notable enough to be in the lead, so I have added it. And I've expanded the caption.
- "Denotes a new church designed by Paley, or one completely rebuilt" – Why not turn this into a footnote? It's not describing a building grade, is it?
- The only entry in the "See also" section is redundant to the navigation template at the bottom of the article.
- Not every viewer will be familiar with navboxes and their purposes and uses. I certainly wasn't in my early WP days. For this type of viewer the See also link provides a quick and easy way of accessing the other work of this architectural practice wihtout having to go to the bottom of the page and open the navbox. And the Sharpe, Paley and Austin article is not in the navbox - that would be redundant. I prefer to keep the See also link.
- The navbox has a link to that article. It can even be accessed without opening the box. (By the way, why is the box closed by default? Using {{Works of Sharpe, Paley and Austin|extended=yes}} will make it by default open.) If linking to Sharpe, Paley and Austin is really so important that doing it once isn't enough, I'd have to ask why that extra link isn't placed where it's most likely to be seen, in the lead? Goodraise 20:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note "a.": The uninitiated might benefit more from this explanation if it contrasted the described form of "restoration" with what is meant by "restoration" today.
- Citation 72: The title of the linked page is "Capel Garmon Parish Church", not "Chapel Garmon". (Not a unique issue.)
- Fixed; I don't think there are now any more.
- "Brandwood et al. is the most comprehensive published account of the Sharpe, Paley and Austin practice." – This would be nice with a citation.
- PDF sources are inconsistently marked. Compare citations 84 and 95.
- Citation 95: "Diocese of Manchester: All Schemes" – I'm not finding that title in the source, only "Diocese of Manchester" and "manchester - all schemes.pdf" as the file name. (Not a unique issue.)
- Citation 95: How do you know this is part of the "Church Commissioners/Statistics" series? I don't find that mentioned in the source.
- I've amended these three citations. The mother page of these is here. But this is not accessible through the link in the citation, so I have amended the citations to remove "All Schemes" and "Church Commissioners/Statistics".
- Why is the title of citation 128 in italics? (Not a unique issue. See MOS:QUOTEMARKS#Names and titles as well as WP:ITALICS#Names and titles for when to use what.)
- Fixed this and, I hope, all the others.
- The citation templates you elected to use (you don't have to use citation templates at all) produce inconsistent output. Compare, for example, the positions of "English Heritage" and "The Heritage Trail" in citations 127 and 128.
- Citation 137: "Church of All Saints, Lupton (1335929)" – That's not the title of the linked page. Its actual title is "1335929". That may look stupid, but it's the title nonetheless.
- Actually I think that the title of this (and all similar pages) is "List entry"; using this every time would I think look (and be) silly. 1335929 is the LEN (list entry number) rather than a title. The Name in the list is "Church of All Saints", and I added Lupton to differentiate it from the other similarly named churches.
- Obviously, what the title of a page is can be open for debate. Here I'm seeing three reasonable choices: 1.) "List entry" 2.) "Church of All Saints" and 3.) "1335929" (as provided by the document using the HTML <title> tag). That you added something for good measure is the main problem I have with your approach. Unless it appears anywhere in the source material, it's not the title. Goodraise 20:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "National Heritage List for England" -> "The National Heritage List for England"
- Part of the problem arising from the last three comments is that I find the Template:NHLE extremely useful and easy to use. But I take your point and have raised a query on its talk page.
First batch. Goodraise 21:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First responses. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am stuck. Please see this discussion. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read the linked discussion. However, it's not a reviewer's job to run around telling template coders what to do. This is all up to you. You can enter the information manually into the source code of your articles, or you can use whatever templates your like. You can mix templates with not using templates. You can even write your own templates, or copy and modify existing ones to your needs. It doesn't even matter what citation style you use. You can go with APA style, ASA style, MLA style, or whatever style you choose, but whatever you ultimately decide to do "under the hood", what we as reviewers and readers get to see needs to be consistent from one citation to the next. In short: You can do whatever you like, however you like, as long as the end result looks the same for all citations. Goodraise 20:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But you need to take into consideration that once the "template coders" have done their job the problem is solved, and not just for this article. In fact the template isn't protected, so you could even fix it yourself. Eric Corbett 20:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm here to do is to check whether list articles meet the criteria, and WP:CITE happens to say that "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." Change that, or remove CITE from the criteria, and I'll shut up about it. But don't expect me (or any other reviewer) to get involved in behind the scenes disputes of whatever nature. Why would I? It's not as if I care about churches or architecture, or even England for that matter. Goodraise 21:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've made your position very clear. Eric Corbett 21:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good! That was my intention. Goodraise 21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Goodraise, for your review and advice on this occasion, and previously. Your comments have led to improvements in both lists, and I have learnt more about the technicalities of preparing lists in the process. I am grateful to you for this. But I am not going to rewrite all the NHLE citations.
- The NHLE citations provide all that is required in respect of the title of the article, the title of the source, the publisher, the date of retrieval, and an online link to the source.
- Within the citation I have provided a title for the article that is accurate, it is contained in the source, and is understandable by the reader. The use of a bare number, which has no meaning to the reader, does not seem to me to be helpful.
- Are we here to provide information in a helpful manner to the reader, or to satisfy one interpretation of the MoS? The MoS itself states that it is a style guide; it does not say that it is a set of rigid rules.
- The MoS already allows for different styles within citations. For example, many articles have a mix of Harvard links to Sources, and other forms of citation.
- A general query. The NHLE citations are based on a template. An extract from the guidance states
Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style. In this context, what constitutes a consensus, and how is it achieved? Writers of articles and lists on buildings listed by English Heritage are increasingly using this template because it is simple to use by both editor and reader and, as an advantage, it produces a neat display. Does this use constitute a consensus amongst those editors? And would such a consensus satisfy the guidance?
- You yourself are not consistent as a reviewer. In your review of List of works by Sharpe and Paley you allowed the use of the NHLE template without comment. Have the rules changed since then? If so, when and how? And you also allowed a mix of titles with and without italics.
- Your comment on churches, architecture, and England are not worthy of a FLC reviewer.
- I request that you close your review, with an Oppose if you so wish, and allow other reviewers to make comments.
- Replying to your points in reverse order:
- Reviews can be conducted simultaneously. That actually used to be the norm when there were more reviewers compared to the number of nominations than there are today.
- I don't care about churches, architecture or England any more than I care about Pokemon, culinary nuts, storms, warships, chart positions, or a million other things covered by Wikipedia's body of lists. What I do care about is Wikipedia, and that its featured lists are worthy of imitation. If you disapprove of that attitude, then that's just one more item on a very long list of things about which I don't care.
- Did I really allow all these things? Please accept my apologies for providing such a sloppy review last time. (Note: I try never to use sarcasm on Wikipedia. I am actually sorry that I missed these things back then.)
- Curiously, what Wikipedia:Citing sources does here is to protect style diversity (between articles). Essentially, it gives you as the primary contributor to this article more say over what particular citation style should be used by that article and whether templates should be used than anyone who may want to change the style later. If, for example, I wanted to change the article to APA style without templates, I'd have to suggest and gain consensus for that change on the talk page first. Likewise, you would technically have to seek talk page consensus before introducing {{NHLE}} or any other citation template to articles not already using those templates. Of course if nobody objects, you'll get away with not seeking consensus first, but if somebody takes issue, they'll have WP:CITE to back them up.
- There's one thing you seem to forget: Nominating an article for featured list status is optional, and doing so implies (among other things) that it "complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages."
- Goodraise 20:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article violates criterion zero in that it does not follow a consistent citation style as required by WP:Citing sources, which the nominator refuses to correct. (Please note: I'm open to continuing the discussion now hidden in the collapsible box above if it is desired.) Goodraise 20:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Before jumping to any conclusions, I trust that future reviewers will read the arguments for my so-called "refusal", which have been hidden by collapsing the box above. In my opinion, while the list may not be cited according to the letter of the MoS as interpreted by one reviewer, I believe that the way I have cited the list is in keeping with the principles of WP and the guidance given to its editors. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is disagreement about what is meant in the context of this list by consensus in the formatting of citations. One opinion is expressed in the closed box above; the other in the discussion at Template talk:NHLE. If corporate authors (in this case English Heritage) are the same as "Author", English Heritage should be placed at the start of the citation, as they are in this list. The publishers of the list are also English Heritage; surely it would not be sensible to add English Heritage at the end of the citation as well as at the beginning! Ref 21 is published by English Heritage, so that name appears at the end of the citation. But this results in an apparent inconsistency between the positioning of the author of most of the citations and the publisher of Ref 21. Is there a real inconsistency, or just an apparent one? This needs to be resolved, not only for this FLC but also for future FACs and FLCs that include information about listed buildings and use the NHLE template. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding between us. As far as I'm concerned, when the author or authors of a source (or it's corporate authors for that matter) are the same as its publisher, then you can, for all I care, omit either, or include both. However, you only get to make that decision once per article, not once per citation. Goodraise 16:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean that your concern is not about consistency, but rather about repetition? I cannot find anything in the MoS or any related pages that advises that the citations cannot be used in the way they are in this list. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, my concern is about consistency. Repetition and non-repetition are both acceptable, as long as they're applied consistently. All that really matters to me is that the citations are assembled using a single set of rules that given the same input will produce the same output (call it a "citation style" if you will). Now I'm looking at citations 21 and 24. The best I can tell, they both have the same author and the same publisher, but one of them puts the author/publisher at the beginning, the other at the end. That's a difference that might be an inconsistency. Now you can either remove that difference, or explain to me why that difference isn't an inconsistency, or give me a good reason for why that difference, even if it is an inconsistency and therefore a violation of WP:CITE, should be tolerated.
Look, I'm a reasonable person and this isn't a hot button issue for me (far from it). In fact, I'm rather astonished that this turned out to be such a big deal. And I only "closed" my review (prematurely) because you explicitly asked for it. Goodraise 12:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not as astonished as I am. OK, I changed the order of the details in Ref 21; and also Ref 12 for good measure as it's a similar ref. (Although in fact I've no idea whether EH is the corporate author of these items, or if the author should be "Anon."). Do you require me to do the same for Refs 70, 72, 84, 96, and 129 (and have I missed any?)? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm neither all-knowing, nor infallible. Reviewing articles, even after all this time, is still a learning-by-doing issue for me. When I'm saying something wrong, I want to be told about it, not blindly obeyed. That said, how can you tell that English Heritage is the corporate author of citations 138, 137, and similar? Anyway, I'm satisfied. I'll simply strike my oppose and "cap" this conversation, if you don't mind. If I find myself with a couple of free hours on my hands, I might finish my review, but I wouldn't count on it. If I don't return, good luck with whoever else shows up to review.
Goodraise 19:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am responding, not to continue any disagreement, but rather to give what explanation I can from my point of view. For a start, I have reverted my last edit. You will have realised that I am not good at the technicalities of WP, but I do like to write articles and create lists, mainly on heritage and, when an article or list seems to be rather better than most of mine, I feel it is good to seek some recognition for it. And in the review process I usually learn how to improve my work even further, as I did from your previous review (for which I am grateful, as I think I said earlier). As my work is mainly on heritage articles, I have come to use the NHLE template, which is simple to use, and provides everything the reader needs to inform him and to link to the source; it is also IMO elegant. I have zero clue about writing templates, so I have to rely on and trust the experts. I referred above to the Template talk:NHLE and would ask you, if you have the time and interest, to read the full discussion. There you will find that the designers discussed the matters of author, publisher, etc, and for the reasons given in the discussion, came to the conclusion to use English Heritage as the author (what they call corporate author) and not to repeat it as the publisher (at one time they thought of "English Heritage staff" for the author field, but then settled for "English Heritage"). I have no idea whether that is correct or incorrect, but it is the reason why in one of the citations in the list EH appears at the end (as publisher) and, by a sort of coincidence, at the beginning of the others (as (corporate) author). Thus there appears to be an inconsistency, when in fact the apparent inconsistency is a coincidence rather than a true inconsistency. I have no power to change the template, nor am I going to get into any prolonged discussion about it with the creators. I intend to continue to use it, and will have to risk any criticism in respect of what appears to be (but is not) an inconsistency. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
