Talk:St Melangell's Church

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Saint Melangell's shrine was reconstructed from pieces of the 12th-century original found in the walls of the church and lychgate? Source: Britnell, W.J.; Watson, K. (1994). "Saint Melangell's Shrine, Pennant Melangell". Montgomeryshire Collections. 82: 147.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: this ran as a DYK in 2009; recently the DYK guidelines were changed to allow multiple runs for an article (see here and here)

5x expanded by Sawyer-mcdonell (talk). Self-nominated at 00:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/St Melangell's Church, Pennant Melangell; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: This is looking good so far, but I have one fix to ask for before I can approve this. The first couple sentences in § Architecture need to be rewritten, as they're too closely paraphrased. See the report. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

that little bit in the architecture section is a leftover from before my rewrite; fixing it now. :) sawyer * he/they * talk 04:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

rewrote that section; hopefully it should be good now! sawyer * he/they * talk 04:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Approved. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Geardona (talk · contribs) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing later (reminder for me) Geardona (talk to me?) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): no huge problems I can see, auto ed came up with nothing. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): , just did a few spot checks of the online sources, dont see any problems. b (citations to reliable sources): A few yellow sources, but nothing huge, all of the tagged yellow sources are fine. c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): ran it through earwigs It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): , the articlr leaces nothing I can think of untouched b (focused): ,, fixed by nom, sections are all consistently on topic, no huge suprises when opening a section, you can find what you need by section title. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

The text seems to wander off in some sections.

@Geardona could you give more detailed feedback on where the text becomes unfocused? I could certainly go ahead & trim some sections (eg the veneration of hares paragraph) but I'd like to hear what specifically you think could be changed. sawyer * he/they * talk 20:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure!
The location section needs to be refocused a little, and possible make the thing about the namesake of the area a section.  Thanks Geardona (talk to me?) 20:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The location section is quite short - do you think it could simply be renamed to something like "location and surroundings" to more accurately reflect the contents of the section? Also, I can definitely make Melangell into a section. sawyer * he/they * talk 20:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, that would make the scope more defined for both! (ping me when done) Geardona (talk to me?) 20:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Geardona done! sawyer * he/they * talk 20:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/St Melangell's Church -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Question about an item in the bibliography

I just added the page range to the source below:

• Crossley, Fred H.; Ridgway, Maurice H. (1947). "Screens, Lofts, and Stalls Situated in Wales and Monmouthshire". Archaeologia Cambrensis. 99 (1): 1–56. hdl:10107/4740418. ISSN 0306-6924.

When checking the first page I noticed that Ridgway isn't listed as an author. A keyword search shows that he is mentioned in the footnotes, but unless I'm missing something (disclaimer: it is late on a Friday night) I don't think Ridgway co-authored the article. User:sawyer777, what do you reckon? Richard Nevell (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

i was very confused about this too when you pointed to it, but i've figured it out. the section that i'm citing is part 5 (beginning on p. 179), which is co-authored by Crossley & Ridgway. i will update the bibliography entry accordingly. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A multi-part article spread across parts, I forgot that was an option. Thanks for bearing with me (and fixing the incorrect page range that I introduced). Richard Nevell (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

no worries! i missed adding the page range in the first place. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)