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 Dabomb87 23:39, 20 August 2010 [1].

Friends of Friendless Churches[edit]

Featured list candidates/Friends of Friendless Churches/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a sister list to the recently promoted FL Historic Chapels Trust. Its format is the same, and the text has been copyedited. It is a comprehensive list of all the churches in England and Wales conserved by the charity called the Friends of Friendless Churches. There is an article for every church on the list. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 08:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support nomination for Featured list. I started this as a humble stub some time ago so have a vested interest. However, it has been greatly expanded into an excellent quality encyclopaedic article. It is easy to read, it is comprehensive in content, it has not been subject to any edit wars or dissent and it provides the reader with both an accurate and sufficient summary and a detailed tabulation or churches owned by the charity. Velela ^{Velela Talk} 12:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — While this is a fantastic and informative list, I do think the lead should be expanded a bit more to summarize all sections of the article. See the Manual of style (lead section) for suggestions. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I completely agree. After I submitted it, another editor divided it into sections with titles. As this is a list rather than an article, IMO this is not appropriate. I have therefore reverted it to the format in which it was submitted. This is the format used for previous FLs that have been promoted, and I submit that it is appropriate for this list. (I note that you also use this format in (at least one of) the FLs you have submitted). Thanks for the comment. I did not revert immediately because I wanted to receive feedback from other reviewers first. I think we are in agreement. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Therefore, strike own comment. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Yep, per Another Believer, the lead is far from adequate. I wonder if the following three paragraphs could sufficiently be worked together without losing detail to form a comprehensive lead? Agree; please see above. Is that what you meant? Is there a link for registered charity? Yes; fixed. "about half of them in England and the rest in Wales" so "about half in Wales" too?! Just a minor point, but maybe a re-phrase here? Fixed. Perhaps just introduce Bulmer-Thomas a bit (i.e. "journalist and (former) MP"...) A little more added. "turned down some " turned down a number of? Done. "70 percent" why not simply 70%? Same with 95.5 percent.. etc. These arose during the copyedit; fixed. You have a link in the Wales heading, I think WP:HEAD says uh-uh to this... This arose following nomination; reverted. Photograph->Image (no big deal but prefer Image) Done. Are columns in both sections the same size (e.g. are the columns aligned from section to section)? Yes, and they seem to match on my monitor. I know this can vary from monitor to monitor and from browser to browser. Is there any way of dealing with this, or will it do as it is? See also's - an en-dash between the link and the explanation, or at worst, a comma... Done. Ref 1 needs a retrieval date. Used the template; date added. Ref 32 has a bold publisher. Not on my monitor/browser; is there a problem elsewhere? If you mean the "South Huish St Andrew" one, it had a wikilink to Friends of Friendless Churches, which showed up as bold being the same page. I removed it.--Beloved Freak 18:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for that; must have missed it .--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Call me radical, but the descriptions of the external links are a little, well, amateurish. Consider just using the ((citeweb)) template for each of them. I had thought that this was the approved way of dealing with ext links. But I agree, so have amended it using ((citation)) for consistency with the references. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Response. Thanks for the helpful review. I hope I have dealt with the points raised. If not, further comments welcomed.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Yep, per Another Believer, the lead is far from adequate. I wonder if the following three paragraphs could sufficiently be worked together without losing detail to form a comprehensive lead?

Agree; please see above. Is that what you meant?

Is there a link for registered charity?

Yes; fixed.

"about half of them in England and the rest in Wales" so "about half in Wales" too?! Just a minor point, but maybe a re-phrase here?

Fixed.

Perhaps just introduce Bulmer-Thomas a bit (i.e. "journalist and (former) MP"...)

A little more added.

"turned down some " turned down a number of?

Done.

"70 percent" why not simply 70%?
Same with 95.5 percent.. etc.

These arose during the copyedit; fixed.

You have a link in the Wales heading, I think WP:HEAD says uh-uh to this...

This arose following nomination; reverted.

Photograph->Image (no big deal but prefer Image)

Done.

Are columns in both sections the same size (e.g. are the columns aligned from section to section)?

Yes, and they seem to match on my monitor. I know this can vary from monitor to monitor and from browser to browser. Is there any way of dealing with this, or will it do as it is?

See also's - an en-dash between the link and the explanation, or at worst, a comma...

Done.

Ref 1 needs a retrieval date.

Used the template; date added.

Ref 32 has a bold publisher.

Not on my monitor/browser; is there a problem elsewhere?

If you mean the "South Huish St Andrew" one, it had a wikilink to Friends of Friendless Churches, which showed up as bold being the same page. I removed it.--Beloved Freak 18:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; must have missed it .--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call me radical, but the descriptions of the external links are a little, well, amateurish. Consider just using the ((citeweb)) template for each of them.

I had thought that this was the approved way of dealing with ext links. But I agree, so have amended it using ((citation)) for consistency with the references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Thanks for the helpful review. I hope I have dealt with the points raised. If not, further comments welcomed.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support a fine work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 02:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments "To that end, it owns over 40 former churches" Since this is a complete list, why not just give the number? "In the financial year ending 31 March 2009" In might be an EngVar thing, but financial year instead of fiscal year sounds strange to my ears. I think us Brits are far more used to "financial year" for what it's worth! (quick check on the BBC website search engine seems to imply a 10:1 financial:fiscal ratio roughly)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, then, ignore this one. As my user page says, I can't keep EngVars straight, even when I'm talking/writing. Courcelles 20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thank goodness we're all different......!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ref 46, why the "Published 2004"? None of the other books contain this, is there a reason? "about half of them in England and half in Wales." This still reads strange, It'd be nice to have a version that doesn't repeat the word "half". Perhaps, '...it owns xx former churches, divided roughly evenly between England and Wales'? I second this. It's better than before, but Courcelles suggests a good compromise... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Courcelles 20:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Response to Courcelles. Good points; I've dealt with Ref 46 (and also for consistency done something similar with the second Ext link). But I should be grateful for advice on the other points. We can avoid financial/fiscal either by simply deleting the "offending" word, or by saying "In the 12 months up to ..." Which do you think is preferable? The source does not use either word (did not realise it would cause a USA/Brit problem!). I have a problem with the source and the numbers it quotes. On the home page here it says "over 40 former places of worship". In the Notes for Editors here it says "40". But when you go to the details the English page here has 19 former churches etc., while the Welsh page here has 20, making a total of only 39! So how do you think this would be best managed? Incidentally, I should already have added something like "as of August 2010" because there may be future additions; I will do this when we decide on the best option. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] PS I have e-mailed the charity who confirm that the numbers quoted above (19 + 20) are currently correct but that further vestings are in the pipeline.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Further response I've now clarified the numbers and deleted "financial".--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 02:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

"To that end, it owns over 40 former churches" Since this is a complete list, why not just give the number?

"In the financial year ending 31 March 2009" In might be an EngVar thing, but financial year instead of fiscal year sounds strange to my ears.

I think us Brits are far more used to "financial year" for what it's worth! (quick check on the BBC website search engine seems to imply a 10:1 financial:fiscal ratio roughly)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, ignore this one. As my user page says, I can't keep EngVars straight, even when I'm talking/writing. Courcelles 20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness we're all different......!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 46, why the "Published 2004"? None of the other books contain this, is there a reason?

"about half of them in England and half in Wales." This still reads strange, It'd be nice to have a version that doesn't repeat the word "half". Perhaps, '...it owns xx former churches, divided roughly evenly between England and Wales'?

I second this. It's better than before, but Courcelles suggests a good compromise... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles 20:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Courcelles. Good points; I've dealt with Ref 46 (and also for consistency done something similar with the second Ext link). But I should be grateful for advice on the other points.

We can avoid financial/fiscal either by simply deleting the "offending" word, or by saying "In the 12 months up to ..." Which do you think is preferable? The source does not use either word (did not realise it would cause a USA/Brit problem!).
I have a problem with the source and the numbers it quotes. On the home page here it says "over 40 former places of worship". In the Notes for Editors here it says "40". But when you go to the details the English page here has 19 former churches etc., while the Welsh page here has 20, making a total of only 39! So how do you think this would be best managed? Incidentally, I should already have added something like "as of August 2010" because there may be future additions; I will do this when we decide on the best option.

Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have e-mailed the charity who confirm that the numbers quoted above (19 + 20) are currently correct but that further vestings are in the pipeline.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further response I've now clarified the numbers and deleted "financial".--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support That they seem to contradict themselves presents a conundrum, but you've handled it well. Courcelles 02:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I shall be away from tomorrow for a week and may not be able to get to a computer to deal with any further comments until I return.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support off you go. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made two minor changes (an arguably missing word and a stray fragment of publisher info); that's all that was needed. I've run all the toolbox checks, spot-checked some of the refs, checked that all the coordinates are accurate, checked the wikilinks and so on; everything is in order. Pleased to offer my support accordingly ... now for the Churches Conservation Trust?!... (I'll help with southern England!) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.