Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blakeney Chapel/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [1].

Blakeney Chapel

edit

Blakeney Chapel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in Blakeney, not a chapel, real purpose unknown, dates highly uncertain — a perfect topic for a short FAC. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - SkarmCA (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The History section has a map in it labeled '1586', but the caption for the image in the article states 1858. I assume the former is correct, but I am unsure.
  • Comments
  • Missing/wrong links: Chapel of ease, "Roman or earlier pottery and three Henry III pennies", flint, Pantile (roof material), Roman - we can do better than Roman Empire surely, Saxon - NO!!!! Anglo-Saxon!!! Never "Saxon" in England, unless analysing among earliest settlers. I thought galleting was covered somewhere, but it seems not.
  • Linked as suggested, changed links to Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon as suggested, pantile already linked
  • The geolocation coordinates & map links are useful but the text should explain the location better at the start - there is more right at the end. It seems to be not much more than 100m from the start of the sea beach, but on the inland side of the river, which is at this point running roughly parallel to the coastline.
  • Expanded as suggested, although it is now on the north side of the river following the river realignment
  • Presumably some more information may be gained as the site disappears, if it doesn't all go in a rush.
  • I wouldn't hold my breath. The major excavation was clearly intended to fully record the site, difficult to see why anyone would fund another dig, and even accidental finds are not likely with no public access and now effectively cut off between the old and new channels

Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had in mind Ancient Roman pottery, then Roman Britain, plus Penny (British pre-decimal coin). Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I'm old enough that it didn't even occur to me to link "penny"... or "Roman"... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might do a stub for galleting when I get time, I'd expected a link too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review and support, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for review. I've added a source to the file, no idea if it's the one the original uploader used since there are dozens of copies of this famous image out there. Obviously no problem with copyright anyway, given that it's several centuries old. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I particularly wanted that image since it's the closest to what appears to be the situation at Blakeney (I've seen unfree photos of the remains of the hearth, which I have failed to get permission to use). I've uploaded a different version File:Bloomeried de re Metallica Agricola.jpg. This has the caption, which makes it clear that it's a smelter, and I've linked to the descriptive text in this translation of De Re Metallica Hope that's OK now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is well-organized, easy to follow and seems comprehensive, considering the state and scale of the building and limited investigation. References not checked. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for support and help sorting out the smelter image

Support: A really nice article, very readable and interesting. Just a few minor points, none of which affect my support for the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The second paragraph of "History" seems to be suggesting that it may have been a religious building, but this paragraph seems rather disconnected from the rest of the section as nothing is made explicit and the "chapel" is not mentioned.
  • "The magnetometry failed to detect the subterranean features of the chapel, but did show an unexpected linear anomaly, resulting from buried ironwork from wartime defences.": Very minor, but "from…from" is a little cumbersome.
  • "resistivity survey": Fairly obvious what this is, I think, but is there anything that could be linked to it?
  • "showed the larger room well": I would suggest a slight rephrase as I originally read this to mean that there was a well in the larger room! But that may just be me…
  • "The building had "substantial time and money spent on it".": Says who? And I think as a quote, it needs a reference immediately after it.
  • In the threats section, a couple of things are not clear to me. The article says that the altering of the course of the river would endanger the chapel ruins, but this does not seem to be stated in the "threats" section. I cannot make the connection between the new course and the threat, as it seems to be saying that the sea was getting closer anyway. Possibly I am being dim, and if so I apologise!
  • As a minor point, the history section is not really a history section as it does not include any archaeological information, so it may be better to rename this as something like "Written history".
  • I can imagine the answer is no, but are there any images of the exposed wall? Or any other parts of the ruins?
  • Similarly (i.e. possibly nothing can be done), the plan of the site lacks some information, for example where this exposed wall is. Some of the other features of the plan did not make complete sense until I had read the article fully; could some of the information, such as the double fireplace or the different walls, be added to the caption or something similar? If not, no problem and this does not affect my support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks so much for your review and support. I think these edits fix most of the ambiguities and lack of clarity. It's true that the site, like much of this coast, would eventually be lost anyway, but sites south of the river are protected by its removal of the advancing shingle, so the most recent realignment accelerates the process considerably. I have been unable to find any images of the previously exposed wall (remember that there is no public access). The HELM website (ref 5) has two small images of the site during excavation, but I have received no reply to a request for release. Lee (ref 13) has many images taken during excavation, but the company has been liquidated, and I think Richard Lee is working in the Middle East, so I haven't even been able to ascertain whether he owns the copyright. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A strong article well written, referenced and researched. An interesting topic, too. A few thoughts-

  • "Faden shows the "chapel ruins"" Who or what is Faden? They are/it is not introduced
  • "simply notes that a local hermit has been given permission to seek" Was given?
  • "no known evidence" Can there be unknown evidence?
  • "means the 'chapel' ruins" How about just "ruins"? That also lets you avoid the MoS-awkward inverted commas
  • There seem to be some unwarranted italics in the references, no doubt caused by that awkward "work=" parameter. For instance, there's no reason why "Titchwell Marsh" should be italicised.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Blakeney_Chapel/archive1&oldid=1089817753"