Talk:St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford

St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 15, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
October 14, 2007	Good article reassessment	Kept

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 22, 2007.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford (pictured) was closely associated with the early Oxford Movement?

Current status: Good article

Anglicanism Mid‑importance

	St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This is a fine article; the only qualm I have is that I'd like to see it a bit better supported by sources. Statements that I think need support are:

"In the 1180s, the site was granted to the canons of the nearby Osney Abbey, and a chapel was erected on the site around 1190."
"In 1802 only ten communicants are recorded, and in 1814 some 90% of the parish was thought to be non-churchgoing."
"The nave was rebuilt in the late 15th or early 16th century to meet a tower of approximately the same age; it is often dated to 1521, but appears to be built on older foundations."

Chubbles 16:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first is from the VCH, the source listed at the end of that paragraph:

Its site was not given to the abbey until between 1182 and 1189, and the grant made no mention of a chapel.

The second is again the VCH:

The number of communicants fell to fewer than 10 by 1802 ... In 1814 nine-tenths of the population were said to be non church-goers from ignorance and vice.

The third is again from the VCH, which is the source listed at the end of that paragraph:

In the late 15th or early 16th century the nave was almost completely rebuilt and extended westwards, perhaps to meet a freestanding tower: the west tower is said to have been completed c. 1521, but its lower stages are earlier

I've added a footnote for the second and left the others as is. Shimgray | talk | 07:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I wish there were an easier way to subsume several paragraphs under a single footnote... Chubbles 07:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The footnoting is pretty messy, but as it stands basically all material can be sourced to the trailing cite. What I'm tempted to do is remove the footnoting entirely for VCH and the Encyclopedia of Oxford, give them as general references, and just footnote the two details taken from the website... it's probably just as useful to the reader, since the two sources were used in parallel and contain much the same material. Shimgray | talk | 07:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review[edit]

Although the article was only given GA status a few months ago, the article seems to me to be particularly weak in a number of ways, so I've nominated this article for Good Article review. Contributors and reviewers alike are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer3000 07:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make any changes needed to keep this GA. Start the suggestions. -- SECisek 09:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of mroe suggestions today.--Peter cohen 13:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Discussion is linked in the article history. Geometry guy 20:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA/R Restarted[edit]

Yyyyyeaaa, seeing as how the review wasn't over even after more than a month, i've restarted it, so that comments will more accuratly reflect the current state of the article. Homestarmy 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebbsfleet[edit]

According to the Ebbsfleet site, the church still seems connected to that see, even without being a parish of its own. Is that correct? Even if not, I think the information about the Ebbsfleet past should remain in the article (with adjusted tenses) as an important aspect of St. Thomas' history; this change seems too much of a good thing in any case.--Oudeístalk 13:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]