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 00:00, 8 April 2011 [1].

List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the East of England[edit]

List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the East of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... This is the fourth in a series of lists of English churches maintained by the Churches Conservation Trust to be submitted at FLC, the previous three having been successful. This list is based closely on the last to be successful, List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the English Midlands. Its format is identical, the first two paragraphs of the lead are identical (the charity's financial details have been updated since the former list was accepted), and the other paragraphs mirror those in the last successful list. The test has been copyedited. Every church in the list is linked to an article, or to part of an article.Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes {http://www.druidic.org/camchurch/index.htm] a WP:RS? Likewise {http://apling.freeservers.com/Villages/Islington.htm}, {http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/LIN/Buslingthorpe/#ChurchHistory}, and {http://www.britainexpress.com/attractions.htm?attraction=4079} Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting query. To take the sources in the order presented.
The text of {http://www.druidic.org/camchurch/index.htm} (Cambridgeshire Churches) is written by Ben Colburn, Cambridge PhD student [2]. While his pages are not cited, he does give a bibliography [3] which suggests his material is authoritative. Where his material is repeated in other (reliable) sources, it is accurate and I have no reason to suspect that the other material is unreliable.
I do not know anything about {http://apling.freeservers.com/Villages/Islington.htm} but have used it in one article only — to give access to an excerpt from Kelly's directory of 1883. I have no reason to doubt that this is other than a correct transcription of a reliable source.
I thought GENUKI is OK. It is a site mainly of transcribed material from official sources, or for links to such sources. I have used it only in this list (I think) to give the dates that churches were declared redundant where I could not find this info elsewhere.
Britain Express is interesting. There are no references or citations. But it seems to have pages relating to all the churches preserved by the Trust, and in the course of writing the lists and associated articles I must have looked at over 200 of them. Once again, where the material is repeated in other (reliable) sources, it is accurate and I have no reason to suspect that the other material is unreliable.
Having said all that, if there is a consensus among reviewers that these sources (all or some) are unreliable, I am willing to delete their contents from the list. One of the reasons I included them was to provide pieces of information that might interest the reader sufficiently to link to the relevant article. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
''All Saints stands in marchland and has a leaning west tower. "marshland" surely? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A typo. Fixed.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Originating the 12th century, the church was expanded during a time of prosperity in the town in the early 15th century. missing "in", I think. Better might be "Built in". Jezhotwells (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amended as suggested.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
''Without the help of an architect, this church was designed by its rector, Rev Whitwell Elwin, who borrowed details from other churches in the country. "country" or "county"? Could be better phrased. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. It is "country"; Glastonbury, Lichfield, Westminster Palace, and others.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good, good. i would like to see what others think of the sourcing. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, the original source should be cited, whether on or off-line, rather than a transcript. If there is no alternative, then the citation should make it clear that it is a transcript of an original source. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref amended. Does it work like that?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)CommentSupport This appears to be another excellent addition to the series of FLs (I must declare a bias as I helped with one of them). The lead seems to cover the wide spectrum of items in the list, which itself seems well written and sorts appropriately.

  • I think this inconsistency arises from the architects themselves (or those who write about them). I have checked this in a volume of Pevsner, and in a book on Victorian architecture. In some cases there are even partnerships where one partner uses full names, and the other just initials. Teulon is usually (if not always) referred to as "S. S.". Scott cannot of course be "G. G." because his son shares the same initials (and the other son is usually referred to as J. Oldrid Scott (not John ...). Having said that Bodley is usually "G. F.", so I have amended that. I think all the architects' names are now in their usual convention.
  • Amended.
  • See above
  • Fixed.

I hope some of these minor comments are useful. Generally I think the list has been very well done.— Rod talk 21:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both reviewers. I think all the points have been addressed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing these. I am unsure about the Britain Express source so am happy to support.— Rod talk 08:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. Not sure what to do about the first sentence — I'm no copyeditor! There's only one Pevsner because that's all I have — picked up secondhand on holiday some time ago. Yes, it's frustrating to have just one missing photo. But this gives opportunities for other editors to enrich the list (and the associated articles). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. Could this be a browser problem? I use Firefox, and there are no such lines. IE problem? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it could - I have IE8. I'll ask around. --GuillaumeTell 22:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that I've talked the above over with another IE8 user. He can't see the extra vertical lines that I can see (incidentally, they all seem to appear where the image to the left is in portrait rather than landscape format), so it looks as if the problem is at my end. Clearing the cache and suchlike make no difference. Oh, well. --GuillaumeTell 17:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A thought: we know that there are errors in Pevsner and in ODNB, but they are considered to be reliable sources. We have no evidence that there are errors in the sources I have to delete, but they are unreliable. That's life! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable refs deleted plus two that have become deadlinks since the change of the CCT website.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to say that WP:RSN is somewhere to seek third-party opinions rather than a definitive answer, although WP:RS and WP:SPS do seem pretty clear on this. I'm just aware that I'm the only person who replied over there, that's all. WP:V does say that the threshold is verifiability, not truth - but I think you should always try and identify errors if you can, the key of course being that the reader has to be able to verify that something is an error. It occurs to me that if you are able to get the material you've had to reject included in a reliable source, then you'll be able to re-instate it in the article. Maybe there's some mileage in submitting it to one or more of the reliable online sources? It seems a bit of a waste of your hard work, otherwise. Maccy69 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Maccy69 for that. I appreciate your replying on this page. In making the amendments, not much has been lost in the context of a list. I do understand what you say, and am (sort of) happy to live with it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Table caption does not need a full stop.
Fixed.
  • "The church dates from about 1100" but previous col says 11th century. (Wordwell)
Deleted — conflicting sources.
  • "This is said to be ..." not sure this is totally encyclopedic.
Deleted.
  • " a a dole cupboard " odd...!
Typo — fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have dealt with the above.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments Support

I think brackets are the better solution, and these have been added. I had been rather "put off" brackets in the lead by an earlier review, but then they were in the first sentence, and I think they work OK here.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should have thought so, but I took the small "c" from Norman conquest of England; maybe it's "wrong" there.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I have tend to be very vague about this; in some cases not only the date but the cause(s) — (black death, loss of local manor house, shift of population for economic reasons); too complicated to include in a list (and sometimes too speculative even for a short article).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A similar problem — sources available to me. I should have thought they would be readily available from the CCT website, but I cannot find them there. In some cases, I did find a date, but these had to be deleted because the source was deemed to be unreliable (see above).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead seems to hit the nail on the head: there's an explanation of the Trust, what it does and how the churches are looked after, and the main trends of the table. The table itself is laid out sensibly, and the descriptions are informative without being overwhelming despite the number of entries. Another very good list. Nev1 (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Sorry I could not give better answers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, my attention has been brought to this site from which, I understand, you can deduce the dates of redundancy and vesting. But I wonder if it is worthwhile adding these details to the list. It would add clutter, and I'm not sure that the information provided will be of much use in the list. The information should IMO be contained in the individual articles, but that will take some time to complete. What do reviewers think? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought a lack of information (or simply unclear information) might be the problem, particularly regarding DMVs. If you think that including the year each church was declared redundant will clutter the table and it's the kind of information that is better suited to the individual articles, that's fine by me. I've switched to support. Nev1 (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Looking at MOS:QUOTE, it seems to recommend that a quotation inside a quote, like in the second sentence, be given with a single quote mark, not the regular double. At least that's what I think it says.
  • An excess word needs to be removed in "which was built in in the later part of the 19th century."
  • Minor, but a serial comma would be useful after "three churches in Norwich" since the style is used elsewhere.
  • St. Mary, Moulton: Add "and" before 16th in "The fabric of this church dates from the 12th, 14th, 16th centuries."?
  • St George, Edworth: Add "a" before fragment in "Also in the church is fragment of a 14th-century wall painting".
  • St Mary, East Bradenham: Remove "the" from "and along the both sides..."? (not as sure about this one as I am about the two above)
  • All Saints, Thurgarton: Repeated word needs removal in "and there are are the remains of wall paintings." Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last 6 points: all fixed. Thanks for spotting these; it's amazing (to me) that such errors persist after so much scrutiny.
  • What you say (about quotes) is correct. But when I went to the source it is no longer there! As I mentioned above, the CCT have changed their website in the last few days, and the quotation is not to be found anywhere on the site. So I had to find the original legislation. To make it more complicated, the 1968 Measure has been consolidated in the 1983 Measure. Anyway, I've amended the first two paras in the lead, with a ref to the 1983 Measure, and dealt with the other consequences in the lead arising from this. I think it works (tell me if it doesn't). I've made similar amendments in the related lists and in the Churches Conservation Trust article. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hassocks: Almost all points have been covered by earlier reviewers. I just have some small observations:

Lead

  • Mention was made above about the commas and brackets in the There is one church in Georgian style... sentence. The commas before the opening brackets should be removed, and and probably works better than while in the context of the whole sentence.
  • almost all of them in Grades I and II* → almost all of them at Grades I and II*.
  • Only the Audley chapel of St Michael's Church, Berechurch has been conserved, the rest of was converted for other uses needs a sharper division between the clauses; I suggest a semicolon. Also, there is a missing word.

Table

  • St Denys, Little Barford needs a <br> before its coordinates.

Refs

  • Currently, four refs are redirecting to the CCT home page.
  • Some very small glitches: current refs [218] and [223] have extra # symbols at the start, and [212] is missing a closing bracket.

Alt text for pics

  • Small typo in St Nicholas' Church, Normanton.

All coordinates are pointing to the right places on the generated maps. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Hassocks Thanks for spotting those. The "minor" blips have been corrected. The "major" one is the four refs. They originally went to pages on the old website describing in detail some of the projects carried out by CCT. Now I cannot find them, and I suspect they are no longer available. This means that I have had to delete these refs, and their content where it is not available elsewhere and, in some cases, write new material. Improvements to websites are all very well, but not when they get rid of valuable (to me) information. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I look forward to seeing the completed list for my home area! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had a good read through of this about a week ago and meant to comment, but time got away from me. I've gone through it again today and this is another fine list in the series. I believe all issues have been ironed out (although I must admit I didn't catch most of what's been mentioned above) and I can't find anything to oppose over. The prose is detailed and informative, while remaining accessible to the average reader. The table works well and references all look in order now (commiserations about the annoyance of the website changing recently.) I'm afraid the following are the only suggestions I could come up with:

  • Yes. This cropped up in the last FLC. Please see the discussion here. It's frustrating, but some Grades have already been reassessed (this is why we use Heritage Gateway rather than Images of England — the later is not, and will not be, updated.
  • Ah, that's interesting. Your decision to keep them separate makes sense.--BelovedFreak 11:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not feel this was a problem, but I have changed the image to the one you so kindly amended.

BelovedFreak 17:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Belovedfreak. Points answered. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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