Comments (Does flattery always get you what you want, TRM?)
"built in 1847–49" – How would you read that aloud?
- "1847 to 49", I guess. Does this need amendment? If so, which would be better: "1847 to 49", or "1847 to 1849"? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know. I'm not a professional copy-editor; I'm just an amateur who's trying really hard. I only know that my (very fallible) instinct tells me that a "built in [year] to [year]" construct sounds wrong. If you were to tell me that quality sources in this subject area use this construct for date ranges longer than two years, then I'd take your word for it and shut up about this in the future, but until someone believably tells me that I'm wrong, I'll have to insist you use the "built from [year] to [year]" construct instead.
- I realise now that you mean the caption to the lead photograph (at first I thought it was the whole of the Date column). I have changed it to "between 1847 and 1849", which I think reads better than "from". --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"St Michael's Church (now Holy Trinity Church)" – Call me a nitpicker, but I don't like the word now being used in this way in an encyclopedia article which may be printed or burned on DVD or whatever and read in a hundred years.
"[7] [38][42][43]" – There's a space where it doesn't belong.
"Potter (1878)." – Page number?
- This was a reference I took from the article, but I had not added it. It is not necessary for this list, and I have deleted the reference and the source. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Curwen, John F., ed. (1926), Supplementary Records: Preston Patrick: Records relating to the Barony of Kendale 3, University of London & History of Parliament Trust, pp. 274–277, retrieved 7 April 2013" – Here I'd take the advice given at Template:Citation and include the volume number in the title field as it is given on the linked website (like this: "Records relating to the Barony of Kendale: volume 3").
"Hughes, John M. (2010), Edmund Sharpe: Man of Lancaster (CD), John M. Hughes" – A bit more information would be nice.
- I've added two sentences in the Sources subsection. I have been in touch personally with the author. He spent something like ten years in researching Sharpe, and has produced a very detailed account; so detailed that he has been unable to find a publisher because it is considered to be too long. And he does not want to spend even more time in producing a shorter version, so that is how it lies for the present. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, this may or may not be a big deal. Follow WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Doing that you can use the parts included in Brandwood et al. Otherwise you can't use it as a source even if it's lying directly in front of you, because it would be a violation of WP:V. How would your fellow editors go about verifying a bit of information you've taken from a book that hasn't even been published yet?
- When I submitted Edmund Sharpe as a FAC, I thought that the use of Hughes' material as a major source might cause the sort of issue you have raised. However, it was not even discussed by any of the reviewers — see the discussion. As it was accepted at FAC, for the sake of consistency, I see no reason why it should not also be accepted at FLC. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have amended the note in the Refs about Hughes to match that in the FA. There is also hidden text about Hughes' contribution to the ODNB article about Sharpe. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, I've heard that argument a thousand times. It's still and always will be invalid. ("I got away with murder last time, so I should be allowed to do it again!" Why does anyone ever think that'll work?) Secondly, unpublished material cannot be used as sources for Wikipedia articles, ever. That's what this is about, verifiability, not reliability. I took what you wrote into the article at face value, that this work is "unpublished". Self-published sources are a different matter however. Add
|oclc=668355694 to the citation template instead of those sentences (hiding them perhaps). That way a reader who wants to verify anything sourced to this work will at least have a place to start looking.
- Agree; silly argument (but it felt OK at the time!). And I misled you (and myself) by saying that the source is unpublished; I was thinking just about publication in book form. It is if course published – as a CD (it says so on the CD itself). So it's published, but it's self-published. That should not be a problem in this case. As WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". His work in the relevant field has previously been acknowledged on the ODNB article on Sharpe, and subsequently he is one of the authors in Brandwood et al. Thanks for your advice on the oclc number. I had no idea about this, or how to find it (FLC as a learning process?). I have added this as advised, and hidden the text. So is that now OK on this being accepted as a reliable and verifiable source? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's fine. I never questioned the reliability of this source to begin with, only its verifiability. So yes, I do except it, but obviously I can't speak for anyone else. (I would hope that you learn things at FLC! Personally, I've learned more about writing good articles while reviewing than while doing anythings else on Wikipedia. Of course not every reviewer takes the time to read, re-read, and re-re-read relevant guidelines and do other kinds of research while examining articles written by other editors about subjects that don't actually interest them. This is also why it can be so frustrating when nominators seem like they just want to be served all the answers on a silver platter, as if it hadn't been their responsibility to check before nomination whether their article actually met the criteria... I'm going off on a tangent. Sorry.)
"Potter, J. (1878), History of the Fylde of Lancashire, W. Porter and Sons" – Same.
Looks good so far. (Items not yet reviewed: Lead, Notes column) Goodraise 07:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to you, too, for the trouble taken. I will deal with the first point following your advice. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. By the way, your execution related replies to TRM's comments cracked me up. I was so close to checking George Orwell bibliography for where he might have recommended that before I realized. Goodraise 18:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited and continued. I found no issues with with the prose in the Notes column. I am however unhappy about the inconsistent Name column. In some cases, renamings are mentioned in the Notes column, with only one it is done parenthetically in the Name column. There's also several easter egg links where there should be links to redirects, or other peculiarities (e.g. "All Saints Church" (missing a apostrophe?), which links to "Wigan Parish Church", which redirects to "All Saints' Church, Wigan"). Goodraise 22:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have sorted out this inconsistency, and found some more to deal with (including coordinates in the wrong column). All the renamings are now in the Notes column. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. I actually thought those were placed there intentionally. Anyway, looks much better now. Goodraise 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Goodraise, from me, for being so amenable to my suggest that Peter requested your review. Marvellous when people collaborate for the greater good! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't mention it. By the way, good to see you're back to your old, sweet-talking self. I take it your wikistress level is down again? (I haven't been following your talk page recently.) Goodraise 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
- That's great! I like you much better this way. Goodraise 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few more things:
I believe both Grade columns violate MOS:BOLD.
- I am not sure that cells with coloured backgrounds are covered by MOS:BOLD, but more likely by WP:CONTRAST. This matter was covered, to my understanding, by RexxS (above) in his review iro accessibility. And, when a template such as {{Grade II* colour}} is used, the following text is automatically emboldened (and I know no way to reverse this). I have however, taken the suggestion of RexxS that the repeated words "Grade" should be deleted from the Grade column. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither RexxS' review nor WP:CONTRAST appear to mention boldface letters. It's also not the template's fault. Try replacing
!{{Grade II colour}}| with |align="center" {{Grade II colour}}|.
- So it was the "!" causing the problem. These have all been replaced. They were only there because a reviewer in a previous FLC
told advised me that's how it should be done. As you realise, am no expert in IT! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies. I suppose I sometimes forget that not everyone has a lot of IT experience.
"St Nicholas, Wrea Green (1848–49), and Christ Church, Bacup (1854)" and "Hornby Castle (1847–52), and Dalton Castle (1856)" – Do you insist on these commas?
- No. They were a hangover from the purge of examples in the lead, and have been deleted. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is solid. One might question whether all those parenthetical dates are necessary, but I'm not going to do that. The only thing I'd like to see would be an appetizer in the first paragraph. ("So this is an article about some of the works of two long dead architects? There's gotta be thousands like them! Why should I continue reading about these two?")
- Yes, but the works live on – and that what this list is about. Nevertheless, I take your point about an "appetizer"; it does need something more. I have added material which should (IMO) do the trick. Thanks again. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "...of Sharpe and Paley. Sharpe and Paley were..." – Unnecessary repetition. I also think you've overdone it slightly. Being unfamiliar with the subject area, I obviously didn't know what could be said about them, but I was expecting something less elaborate, an adjective perhaps, like "highly influential", "acclaimed", or something along that line.
- No, you had spotted an omission that I should have corrected much earlier. You ask "Why should I continue reading...?" You could also ask "Why have I spent many, many hours in writing articles and preparing lists about a little-known provincial architectural practice?". The answer is twofold. First it is unusual for a practice to continue to thrive for over a century with so few principals. Secondly, their work is under-appreciated, and should IMO be more widely acknowledged. I could have just used words as you suggest but, unless they were supported by reliable sources, I would have been in danger of being accused of Puffery. So I used a quotation from the best-known architectural historian of the 20th century. The two new sentences, I think, give justification for the list having some value. Brandwood et al. entitled their Introduction "A practice like no other" (p.1). I could also have used this quote, but decided that would have been too elaborate. Thanks for drawing my attention to this, and so improving the impact of the lead. Repetition removed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, keep that level of detail then, but right now the addition seems out of place, foreign in the middle of the paragraph. It disturbs the flow. How about rewriting the paragraph to start with "Sharpe and Paley was ..."?
It's been an unusually pleasant experience reviewing this article! Looking forward to supporting. Goodraise 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. Almost supporting. Goodraise 20:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few more things. (I'm surprised I forgot to check for them. I guess I'm out of practice.)
Avoid using jargon and "easter egg" links. For example, when you just write "restoring", many readers will misunderstand what you mean, but you can't solve this problem by linking every occurrence of the word to Victorian restoration, because readers will assume that those links point to Building restoration. You will actually have to change the article's text to solve this, at least on the term's first occurrence.Use redirects. They are good for the encyclopedia. For example, link like this [[Roman Catholic]] rather than this [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]]. Also, links in articles should rarely contain number signs (#). That's what redirects are for. Link like this [[Sharpe and Paley]] rather than this [[Sharpe, Paley and Austin#Sharpe and Paley|Sharpe and Paley]], and create a redirect at Sharpe and Paley which points to Sharpe, Paley and Austin#Sharpe and Paley.I think, considering that the hat note ("For details of the works by ...") leads to a related article, it should be integrated into the lead, perhaps into the last paragraph.Likewise, the lead could be tweaked further to render the entire "See also" section redundant. Please try to do so.
I'm sorry that my comments always keep trickling. I just can't help myself. Goodraise 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead rewritten. Some Easter eggs cracked (any more)? Hatnote and See also integrated into the lead. I had always thought that redirects were bad and had to be avoided (I had assumed that because there is a Redirect link on the FAC Toolbox - wrong again!). What next? Does the lead require another copyedit? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As a rule of thumb, direct links are better than redirected links, but redirected links are better than piped links. Here a few more links with room for improvement: Tarnbrook Wyre, Early English, Bluecoat school, Elizabethan Revival, Roman Catholics, Roman Catholic, Austin and Paley, Scottish Baronial, Roman Catholic, cruciform, castellated, Storey Institute, Congregationalists, groining, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
- I have dealt with these (in one way or another), apart from "Austin and Paley". The problem is that there were two separate periods when the practice had this title 1895–1914 and 1915–44, with "Austin, Paley and Austin" between them. So an "Austin and Paley" redirect will not work accurately. I suppose I could amend the Sharpe, Paley and Austin article to absorb the Austin, Paley and Austin sub-section within Austin and Paley; I'll think about that. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Found a simpler way of doing it by reorganising Sharpe, Paley and Austin into subsections and sub-subsections. Austin and Paley now links to the to whole period in which the practice had this title. Dealt with most of the indicated links, but I have been informed that Bluecoat school links to a disambig page. Can we leave it like that? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally, linking to a disambiguation page would not be acceptable, but here it seems that page (Bluecoat school) shouldn't actually be a disambiguation page, but an article, and merged with Charity school. So I guess this is good enough.
- Yes, I think the lead would benefit from another copyedit. The prose quality has deteriorated somewhat.
- "Many of the alterations consisted of the restoration of medieval churches, which in this context means returning the structure of the church to what was its main style, or to what the architect considered to have been the best medieval style, usually that of the 13th and 14th centuries." – Am I imagining it, or are you trying to avoid using the term "Victorian restoration"?
- Yes. I have not seen the term used other than in the title of the WP article. And restoration, in this sense, started before and continued after Victoria's reign. So I've deleted the term from the list. The link in the lead has been maintained, despite my explanation, because the article is otherwise of value to the reader, but it might be better to de-link it. What do you think? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess things are even more complicated than I already thought they were. Basically the problem here, as I understand it, is that you are trying to use a word (i.e. restoration) in a sense in which it isn't used anymore, at least not in the context or architecture. How are the sources dealing with this? Could you perhaps avoid using the word entirely? As for linking or not linking to Victorian restoration, I think this is somewhat of a having-a-cake-or-eating-it situation. If that article really is relevant to this one, you shouldn't hesitate spelling out its title for the reader to see. Otherwise I wouldn't even use it as an entry in a "See also" section. If the issue is that "Victorian restoration" is too specific for your purposes, perhaps you could create a stub article to link, or perhaps add a section to Building restoration (to which you could create a redirect). Or maybe, if you think the article is simply named incorrectly, you could move it?
- The word "restoration" is certainly used currently and frequently in the context of architecture. Almost every article on a medieval church includes the word; either to describe how the church has been restored; or that it has not been restored, because leaving a medieval church unrestored is very unusual. How do the sources deal with it? In the way that Ref 6 does. The explanation in the source occupies nearly a full page, which I have condensed into a single sentence, and which I think covers it simply and adequately. Linking "restoration" to Victorian restoration confuses the issue, so I have removed the link. I do not intend to do anything about the article because I do not have the expertise to change it. And there is no suitable title for moving it; the architectural historians just use the word "restoration"; they know what they mean by it, and I have tried to explain this in the lead as simply and as accurately as I can. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, can't say I'm smitten with the way it's put, but the impending copyedit may change that. We'll see.
Revisited. Goodraise 01:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. Goodraise 14:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. Goodraise 05:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rewritten that sentence, so it now reads "Many of the alterations to medieval churches were done in the course of restoration work, in an effort to return the structure to its main style, or to what the architect considered to have been the best medieval style, usually that of the 13th and 14th centuries." Eric Corbett 19:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit, Eric. Looks good! Just one (hopefully) last question (directed at whoever can answer it): "Paley was ... carrying out independent commissions from at least 1849." Excuse my ignorance, but on what were those commissions not dependent? Did you perhaps mean that Paley carried out commissions independently? Goodraise 04:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite so. Changed as per your suggestion. Eric Corbett 06:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
