Talk:St Mary's Church, Nantwich

Picture

The picture's a bit dark -- would you like me to try and take another one some time when the sun is in the right direction? (That is, if there's ever any sun this so-called summer...) The ones on Geograph were rubbish last time I looked. Espresso Addict 15:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:St Mary's Church, Nantwich/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Generally very good, however the prose tends to be a tad stilted, some of which reads more like a series of single sentances rather than flowing. For example, "Sandstone from quarries at Runcorn was used in the restoration. Not everyone was happy with Scott's restoration." While I don't feel that this needs to be perfect (like always, you'll probably want to dig up a good copyeditor before trying for FAC anyway), it might be worthing making a pass through the prose and seeing if it can be made to flow a little better.

   B. MoS compliance:

   I'm curious as to whether or not "Decorated doorway and a Perpendicular window" should be capitalised, but otherwise it seems fine to me.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   The Netnous source is one I'd find doubtful, but otherwise they seem fine, and Netnous is only used the once in a non-contraversial manner.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I'd really like to see a bit more on structure or present day. While there isn't much to be added about the structure, perhaps, it does seem a tad unbalanced that so much time was spent on the fittings, and so little on the building itself. With the present day section, it seems a tad light, and I'd be inclined to at least mention the current rector, and (if available) the size of the congregation. Perhaps even a bit about current secular uses, such as the performance of concerts in the church.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   It isn't a knock-down reason to fail the GA or anything, but having read so much about the fittings of the church I'd have liked to have seen a photo or two of the interior, or perhaps even a detail shot of the exterior. If you can grab one it would be great - if not, I wouldn't fail it for GA on these grounds alone.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

On the whole I really rather liked the article, and would really like to pass it for GA. Not all of the concerns listed above are essential, but if possible I think a bit more on present uses and a slightly better flow to the text would help. I'll put it on hold for a week, as I can't imagine that there will be much (if any) trouble making the small adjustments for GA. - Bilby (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to GA Review

First of all, many thanks for picking up the article and commenting so quickly. I thought I might have to wait the usual few weeks or more!

• 1A I've had a go at improving the stilted flow. To a degree this results from trying to write from sources which can be cited. Anyway, I've tried to improve the flow. I hope it is good enough.
• 1B Architectural sources use capitalised Decorated etc as a convention. In fact it can be useful to differentiate between Decorated (as a style) and decorated (as an adjective). See my amendments to "Structure" to see how this works. As this is an article in the architecture genre, I feel the convention should be used.
• 3A When the source material is unbalanced, it's a bit difficult to make the sections of similar length. I have been let down by Images of England, which usually has loads of info about the architecture; in this case it is minimal. I've added some stuff (a bit idiosyncratic) from Pevsner to "Structure". I've also found a bit more to add to the "Present day" section. To add more to the latter would just be to reproduce what's on the links, which is really a waste of time.
• 6B Images have been a problem. Ironically I visited the church last week (unexpectedly) without a camera. I have found little in the way of free-use images. But this is counteracted by the additional material I have added in the "Present day" and "External links" sections. The photos by Craig Thornber are particularly good. I hope that the links will fill the gap.

Further comments welcomed. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• The flow is much improved. I know what you mean about the problems of sourcing getting in the way: the joining words which are fine in original research are often extremely inappropriate here. That aside, I expected "Decorated" was the standard, but I figured I'd better check with you either way, and I certainly understand the problems of balance caused by a necessary reliance on the sources: I think the changes you made do more than enough to redress the balance, though, so it is all good now. :) Anyway, I'm more than happy to pass the article. It seems easily enough to qualify for GA. - Bilby (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I've added another sunnier external view -- feel free to delete if you feel it doesn't add anything. Where did you get the view direction for the infobox image from? I might be wrong, but it looks to me like it's taken from Churchyardside near Barclays, which would be from the north west. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Parson's Nose

I was directed here from the article on the "Parson's Nose" because there is evidently a carving on a pew in this church of a parson who (for some reason) upset the woodcarver who carved his likeness with the rump of a chicken for a nose. I was disappointed not to see that mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.28.204 (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead image

I don't feel this is an improvement. I'd prefer almost any of the others in the body. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)