Talk:Taunton Unitarian Chapel/GA1
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Eric Corbett in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 17:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Lead
- "... the method of worship transitioned to Unitarianism over the following years". I don't think I'd call Unitarianism "a method of worship".
- No, I can see what you mean. I think one of the source articles used this terminology, and I got hung up on it. Would this particular sentence work better with that bit simply cut out: "It was built in the early 18th century as a Baptist chapel, but transitioned to Unitarianism over the following years."? Harrias talk 07:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- We're told about the adjoining school twice. That material ought to be pulled together, probably at the end of the final paragraph, as this article is nominally about the chapel, not the school.
- "... the chapel's form of worship became Unitarian". Again, we're told this twice.
- "Despite suffering significant persecution from their peers and the state, the first Baptist chapel was erected in Taunton in 1670". This doesn't quite flow. Perhaps something like "Baptists erected their first chapel in Taunton in 1670" would be clearer? Who were their "peers" anyway?
- I meant the general population by peers, which as you point out, doesn't really work. I've changed the second half as suggested for the moment, and will come back to the first half. Harrias talk 14:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- "The Presbyterians of Taunton merged with the Unitarian church in 1814". Did they merge with the church or with the Unitarians?
- I'm not sure I understand the question fully, but I'll try and answer it here before changing the article! As far as I can tell, the Presbyterians basically moved out of their church and became Unitarians. Harrias talk 14:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- What's the logic of having "Unitarian Chapel" but "Baptist chapel"?
- There doesn't seem much: I assume that I treated "Unitarian Chapel" as a proper noun, because that it how it is known now, but opted for "Baptist chapel" because I wasn't sure if that had been an "official" name, and so figured it was chapel that was Baptist! Do you think it would work better with all capitalised? Harrias talk 07:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Baptist Meeting House
- "This form of worship remained illegal". We haven't said that it was ever illegal, much less remained so. Also, I wouldn't say that "Dissenter" was a form of worship.
- I've reworked this slightly. Harrias talk 14:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- "... which required the use of the Book of Common Prayer as the only legal form of worship in England. Again, in what sense is the Book of Common Prayer a form of worship, legal or otherwise?
- The Book of Common Prayer actually laid out how the service should be conducted; while this phrase is misused everywhere else, I think in this case it might actually be suitable? (I may well still be wrong!) Harrias talk 07:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, having a look on Google, this is very much the common way to express this: [1] Harrias talk 14:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- The Book of Common Prayer actually laid out how the service should be conducted; while this phrase is misused everywhere else, I think in this case it might actually be suitable? (I may well still be wrong!) Harrias talk 07:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- "This led to further hostility toward Dissenters, which were heightened after the failed Monmouth rebellion". The subject is "hostility", which is singular and doesn't match "which were heightened". Did you mean to say "hostilities"?
- Either that, or switch "were" to "was"? Harrias talk 07:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reading it again I think "hostilities" does make the most sense for the sentence. Harrias talk 14:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Either that, or switch "were" to "was"? Harrias talk 07:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- "... 82 places applied for licenses to meet and worship". Assuming this is written in BR English, as it appears to be, that should be "licences".
- Thanks, fixed. Harrias talk 14:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- "In 1721, the Baptist community in Taunton had grown large, and reasonably affluent." That doesn't really make sense. You could say that by 1721 it had grown, but not in 1721 it had grown.
- Good spot, fixed. Harrias talk 14:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Taunton Unitarian Chapel
- A section heading ought not to repeat the article title.
- I've cut "Taunton". Harrias talk 14:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Mary Street Memorial Schools
- The article variously refers to "Schools" and "School".
- I got in tangle with this, particularly after another editor changed them all to "school". It is officially called the "Mary Street Memorial Schools", and it had an "infant school" and a "mixed school", but I'm not really sure, when using "school/schools" as a common noun which form is better to use. Harrias talk 14:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- "... who had been the daughter of a minister of the Taunton chapel." Shouldn't that be "Taunton Chapel"?
- Again, a little confused between proper and common nouns: as I called it "the" does that mean it should take a capital? Harrias talk 14:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- And now I'll get to the point that's giving me most pause for thought. This article is supposed to be about the Unitarian Chapel, yet it contains only one short paragraph about the chapel's architecture; there's more on the schools than there is on the chapel, for reasons I don't understand.
- To respond very briefly to this point alone, the plain answer is that there is more source information on the schools than the chapel. I can cut some of the stuff back about the schools if you think it affects the balance, but I'm not sure that I'm likely to be able to add much the other way, but I'll see what's about that I might have missed. Harrias talk 19:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Apart from the School/Schools being next door, what's their relevance to the chapel? Forgive me if I've got this wrong, but what you appear to be saying is that because there's very little material on the chapel you decided to pad the article out with info about the schools. Is that a fair assessment do you think? Eric Corbett 20:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I won't forgive you, because I don't think there was any good faith in that statement. The school was essentially owned and run by the Unitarian church, making the two pretty intrinsically linked in my opinion. I would actually support splitting them out into separate articles, but to be honest, I don't think the school would likely meet the GNG alone, but fits suitably into this parent article. If you disagree fundamentally on this point, there is little point in us continuing, as the article would fall foul of WP:GACR #3. If I just fail to explain well enough the link between the two, I can work on that, clearly. Harrias talk 22:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- You've now got seven days to write an article about the chapel, not the buildings that surround it. I wish you luck. Eric Corbett 23:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Can I gauge where you are on this: do you think that all mention of the school should be removed; or that some mention in the history section might be justified, but not in the architecture section; or that if the link can be shown adequately then it can be mentioned in both, but with less prominence? Harrias talk 07:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think there are two obvious directions you could take this article. Either you could remove any mention of the school(s) altogether, except where you can make a strong case for their relevance to the chapel but without the apparently irrelevant architectural detail, or you could expand the article to include all the listed buildings in Mary Street – Mary Street House, the Lawn, the chapel and the school(s). In which case of course the article title would more appropriately be "Listed buildings in Mary Street, Taunton", of course. In your shoes I'd go for the first option and focus solely on the chapel. Eric Corbett 13:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Can I gauge where you are on this: do you think that all mention of the school should be removed; or that some mention in the history section might be justified, but not in the architecture section; or that if the link can be shown adequately then it can be mentioned in both, but with less prominence? Harrias talk 07:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- You've now got seven days to write an article about the chapel, not the buildings that surround it. I wish you luck. Eric Corbett 23:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I won't forgive you, because I don't think there was any good faith in that statement. The school was essentially owned and run by the Unitarian church, making the two pretty intrinsically linked in my opinion. I would actually support splitting them out into separate articles, but to be honest, I don't think the school would likely meet the GNG alone, but fits suitably into this parent article. If you disagree fundamentally on this point, there is little point in us continuing, as the article would fall foul of WP:GACR #3. If I just fail to explain well enough the link between the two, I can work on that, clearly. Harrias talk 22:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Apart from the School/Schools being next door, what's their relevance to the chapel? Forgive me if I've got this wrong, but what you appear to be saying is that because there's very little material on the chapel you decided to pad the article out with info about the schools. Is that a fair assessment do you think? Eric Corbett 20:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- To respond very briefly to this point alone, the plain answer is that there is more source information on the schools than the chapel. I can cut some of the stuff back about the schools if you think it affects the balance, but I'm not sure that I'm likely to be able to add much the other way, but I'll see what's about that I might have missed. Harrias talk 19:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been a bit of an idiot about this. (You probably don't need me to tell you that.) I've had a look through a few of the other articles I've written, and of course the school shouldn't be so prominent in this article. I think I came across it, and then kept coming across it, and just got carried away. While it certainly wasn't an effort to "pad" the article, I can sort of see why you might have thought that, given the incongruity. I apologise for my conduct last night, I focussed too much on the way you'd phrased the point, rather than the validity of the point itself, and became over-defensive of my work. I'm a little busy for the next few days, but I'll try and perform a schoolectomy on the article and then see how it is. Harrias talk 16:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- No worries, nobody died. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Eric Corbett 16:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I've cut this down and tried to tidy it up a bit; how does it look now? Harrias talk 15:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's a massive improvement! The only thing now is that the lead looks a little short, with nothing of the history of the chapel after the late 19th century. I think an additional paragraph about the restoration and present-day use, for instance, would round it off nicely. Eric Corbett 16:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've added a little, but I'm loath to add to much for fear of simply repeating the body of the article! Harrias talk 23:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's a massive improvement! The only thing now is that the lead looks a little short, with nothing of the history of the chapel after the late 19th century. I think an additional paragraph about the restoration and present-day use, for instance, would round it off nicely. Eric Corbett 16:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I've cut this down and tried to tidy it up a bit; how does it look now? Harrias talk 15:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- The lead is supposed to summarise the article, but I'm still not sure it's right. Would you like me to suggest something and then you can either agree or reject it? Eric Corbett 00:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- What would you suggest? Harrias talk 11:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've tweaked this a little bit, how does it look now? Harrias talk 12:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's pretty much exactly what I had in mind. Eric Corbett 11:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've tweaked this a little bit, how does it look now? Harrias talk 12:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- What would you suggest? Harrias talk 11:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- The lead is supposed to summarise the article, but I'm still not sure it's right. Would you like me to suggest something and then you can either agree or reject it? Eric Corbett 00:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm putting this review on hold now, pending replies to the issues I raised above. Eric Corbett 19:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Just a note that I've managed to burn out my router's AC adapter (don't ask) so I might not be around for a couple of days, until I get to Maplin. Harrias talk 21:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I'll be away tomorrow myself, and we can continue this on Tuesday. Eric Corbett 21:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we can wrap up this review now, congratulations! Eric Corbett 11:10, 17 March 2015 (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.