Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/St James' Church, Stretham/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

St James' Church, Stretham

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I developed this article from scratch. I have tried to maintain a high article quality on this nearby church, seeking sources for every fact. I thought I had recently discovered a source for the clock maker but in the end, was unsuccessful; I have had to make do with an image as a source. I am aiming for this article as a GAN candidate if a reviewer thinks it is able to reach that standard. I would like a re-grading from Start-class if possible. I did initially submit this to the Christianity project but on further looking into it, they look dormant

Thanks, Senra (Talk) 17:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jappalang
  • Why is Grade II* capitalised in the lede but not in the main body text? What is the context of this grading; i.e. is this grading for architectural design, historical significance, sturdiness, or preservation? I think it would be better to give readers a sense of what the grading is for than to send them off to another article (leaving this article).
  • I think there is a bit too much added...
For the lede's "Founded in the 12th century, this Grade II* listed church was heavily restored by the architect J. P. St Aubyn in 1876.", might I suggest changing it to:
"Founded in the 12th century, it was heavily restored by the architect J. P. St Aubyn in 1876. The English Heritage, a body responsible for preserving historical sites in the United Kingdom, assessed the church a Grade II* structure."?
For the main body text's "Historic buildings in England are protected by Acts of Parliament and listed in a publicly available register. The first act, in 1882, [...] warranting every effort to preserve them. There are approximately 374,000 listed buildings in England. <break> St James' Church, Stretham, is a Grade II* listed building which was originally listed Grade A on 5 February 1952 until a resurvey and regrading on 19 August 1988.", might I suggest adopting:
"St James' Church, Stretham, is a historic building protected by England's Acts of Parliament. Originally, the church was listed Grade A in a publicly available register on 5 February 1952 until a resurvey and regrading by the English Heritage on 19 August 1988. Since then, it is listed as a Grade II* building, which makes the church particularly important to the country's heritage and warrants every effort to preserve it."? Jappalang (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Care should be taken when interpreting what the 12th century historians write, as there were known political motives; in this case, however, the written record seems to agree with other evidence, as fragments of the east chancel are known to be from about the 12th century."
    This tone does not sound right to me; it comes across as if it is instructing the reader on what to do, not exactly what an encyclopaedia (reporting the facts) is supposed to be doing. Furthermore, this cautionary tone is not sourced (Pugh does not address this). Perhaps, "This record of the church's existence in the 12th century is corroborated by the dating of certain of its structure to that period." or the like.
  • "This record of the church's existence in the 12th century is corroborated by the dating of certain of its structure to that period as fragments of the east chancel are known to be from about the 12th century."
The general statement with the example seems a bit redundant. How about "Fragments of the east chancel are known to be from about the 12th century, corroborating the record of the church's existence in that period."? Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like what I said at the peer review for Mount Rainier, I think it is best to acquaint the subject with the reader before launching into cold hard facts. This can be done by stating up front in the History section where the church is and its significance to the people.
  • comment not certain I agree; I may need further specific guidance. The lead clearly states where the church is and its listing gives its significance to the English country as a whole. I have added distance to Stretham from Ely and London early in the history section. Please make further comment --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... at a cost of £4,400 or £306,773 at present worth, as of 2010."
    It sounds weird to me. Why not "... at a cost of £4,400 (equivalent to £306,773 in 2010)."?
  • "The church records for baptism 1558–, banns 1759–1963, marriages 1558–1952, and burial 1558–1956 (C of E only) are kept in the County Records Office, Cambridge."
    I am not enamoured with the numbers there... especially the baptism date which seems partial (though I eventually figure it is supposed to mean from 1558 to current). Why not take out the years and put them in a single footnote? Furthermore, abbreviations are to be stated in full on the first mention. There could be readers from other countries who might not know C of E is the Church of England.
  • "Anne Brunsell, sister of Sir Christopher Wren and wife of rector, has a black marble slab in the chancel dated 1667."
    So what is so significant about a "black marble slab" that is lying around in the church and used to belong to the rector's wife in 1667?
  • "Anne Brunsell, sister of Sir Christopher Wren and wife of rector, is commemorated by a memorial black marble slab in the chancel dated 1667."
I am not certain of two nouns in a row ("memorial black marble slab"). How about "Lying in the chancel is a black marble slab that dates back to 1667; it is a memorial, commemorating Anne Brunsell, sister of Sir Christopher Wren and wife of the rector then." Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree   Done Thank you for the suggestion. I used it wholesale after checking carefully that it was not a copyvio from Pugh (1953) nor Pevsner (1970). WAIT. I am not accusing you of copyvio at all. Recently, someone else made a correction to another of my articles and changed a word which happened to accidentally match exactly the source --Senra (Talk) 12:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... at a cost of £350 or £27,449 at present worth, as of 2010;"
    The same as two points above.
  • "The oldest bell as at 2010 ..."
    "As of 2010"?
  • "According to Canon K W H Felstead's (and subsequent) records, ..."
    Subsequent canons?
  • Note that hidden lists tend to be frowned at (if this is brought to FAC); collapsible lists in the text should be shown on default.
  • Is the church still open? What is the number of its parishioners? Are there any notable parishoner or priest who have contributed to this church (or made news while still with the church)?
  • agree   Done The church is still open as it says in the infobox. I have added the word 'active' to the lead and early in the history section --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I do not know the current congregation size. It will be small. I will try and find out --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment yes, a small number of vicars (rectors? parsons?) have some small infamy. For example, Henry Law was one of the magistrates involved in the Ely and Littleport riots 1816; Mark Ridley was born in Stretham whilst his father was rector there; John Sparke became Canon of Ely, Stuart Stitt was (and still remains) the longest serving rector of Stretham. Not sure any of these people are really nationally notable. Would you be kind enough to provide further advice on this one please? --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is one of those fields that can degrade the quality of the article if done incorrectly (filling it with a list of trivia). What I was suggesting is to look for notable events that involved the church in some form (e.g. a church personality who is associated with the church and hence by becoming notable, brought the church into public view). It might not need to be nationally notable (although it needs to be well known in a region larger than a single town or county). For example, if a vicar of this church is known to lead members of his parish in performing charity work in the region, it might be reasonable to report on that (by extension of the vicar and his parish's work in the name of the church). However, incidental events (such as relations by birth and actions done not in the capacity as a church official) would be trivial and best be ignored. Jappalang (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree   Done completed but not in the way I expected. I did raise the issue with Jza84 (talk · contribs) at File:Cambridgeshire outline map with UK who kindly corrected the file in question by adding source information. Shortly after, and apparently coincidentally, Jza84 reports that the new and better sourced file has been released. In any case, whatever file is included is done automatically without my intervention by my use of the {{infobox church}}. I have checked the new file and sourcing looks ok to me --Senra (Talk) 12:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to put in where did you get the data to draw File:St James drawing.jpg (personal visit, maps, brochures, etc).
  • I am totally ignorant of the history of bell music, so it would be best to give information on why Bob Minor is no longer a copyrighted score (if it dates back to the 17th century or earlier, we are absolutely safe). Otherwise File:Bob Minor, Synthesised Bell Sounds.ogg might be a copyright violation.
  • I managed to find the Bob Minor's definition in an 1829 book (which explains it better than our articles here...) ; I think that pretty much proves it in the public domain (it is published before 1923 and if there is an author, he would certainly be dead more than 70 years ago). This sound file is good now. Jappalang (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, I am not sure what transpired there has cleared this image for use on this church. I would say that it might be fair use for the article on the Church of England organization. What makes it necessary (that words cannot effectively convey) for this logo to help readers understand further about St James? That (strict use of copyrighted images) is generally what compliance with the 10 criteria of WP:NFCC is supposed to do. If the logo is one without copyright (in the public domain or licensed in compliance with the aims of the project), there is no issue with using it in any article (except maybe content-wise). A copyrighted image, however, has stricter rules to it. Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am no expert for sure but it seems to me that the FUR in this file is fair use for this article (and I did not write the FUR) especially points 3 and 4 ...
From http://www.cofe.anglican.org/ for fair use on Church of England
  1. This image is a low-resolution image of the logo of a Christian denomination.
  2. This image does not limit the copyright holder's ability to profit from the original source, nor will it dilute the importance or recognition of the logo in connection with its organization.
  3. This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone.
  4. Use of the logo visually identifies the denomination's doctrines and operations in a manner that mere prose cannot, and meets all criteria in WP:NFCC
... of course I may be wrong --Senra (Talk) 00:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of it is: I do not need to see the logo to know this church is under the C of E. Words explain it very well (NFCC #1 failure - free equivalent available). This church is not the C of E; it does not need the logo as an identifying marker, which the picture of the church serves in that capacity very well. How does seeing this logo help the reader understand more (that is not covered by the previous two points) about the church (NFCC #8 failure - contextual insignificance)? Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agree reluctant agreement as in my opinion, the logo describes the doctrine far more quickly and efficiently than mere words can achieve. Nevertheless, your points are well made. I have removed the logo --Senra (Talk) 14:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and graded the article C-class. It is a conservative assessment. Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really very much appreciate the time you have taken to conduct this review. I also appreciate the C-class regrading you have issued. I would further welcome you checking my work above and if there are any matters arising I will gladly handle them as expediently as I can --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help with this article. If you are happy, please close the review or I will close it around 10:00 am 29 September 2010 (UTC). Once closed, I will be submitting this article as a GAN unless you feel the article has gone as far as it can go --Senra (Talk) 15:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is up to you to close the review (no one else is to close it unless it violates procedure or something). I think there is not much more I can help with this article. Good luck! Jappalang (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/St_James%27_Church,_Stretham/archive1&oldid=387706733"