Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed churches in Greater Manchester/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 14:57, 18 August 2012 [1].

Grade I listed churches in Greater Manchester[edit]

Grade I listed churches in Greater Manchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list of the Grade I listed churches in Greater Manchester. The text has been copyedited, and the format is precisely the same as that used in the recently promoted Grade I listed churches in Cheshire. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RexxS

A very engaging article, and copiously referenced. I have a few observations that might be useful:

  • Alt text is present and sensible on each image; that meets what we recommend for accessibility.
  • The table doesn't identify the scope of the column headers as suggested at WP:DTAB. That would simply require adding scope="col" to each of the present headers.
  • The table has no row headers but since the full, unambiguous name of the churches doesn't appear in the fields, I can't see a good candidate for row headers. There's probably nothing to be done about that.
  • The initial sort order is almost by 'Location', but sorting on 'Location' reverses the two "Manchester" and the two "Stockport" churches in my browser. Not a problem, but might be worth checking.
  • I wonder why you specify column widths? You set the overall table width to 100%, but also specify each column width in pixels, which obviously will conflict. One problem that may result is that different fonts have different metrics and you can't guarantee that 100px for 'Name' will fit as well as 100px for 'Location', for example. The other problem is that you've set the portrait images to be centred, but not the landscape ones, which works ok with browser windows up to about 1280px. After that, the 'Photograph' column increases beyond 100px and the misalignment starts to become apparent. You could centre all of the images, or simply remove the width for the 'Notes' column - those give different effects, so you might want to try each to see which you like better.

Overall, a lot of work has gone into producing this list, with a lot of attention to detail. Only minor adjustments should be needed for it to meet our criteria for a Featured List. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have spotted that I don't really understand the instructions for formatting data tables (!) so your comments and advice are very welcome. I confess that I have copied from other lists, and if it seems to work ....it seems to work. So, up to now I have added scope="col" to the column headers; and I've removed the width for the 'Notes' column. And I think I've sorted out the sorting. It works on my computer; will it work on all? Many thanks for the helpful advice. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've sorted out all of my concerns, Peter. You've marked up the the column headers perfectly, but don't forget you can always ping me if you're not sure with tables. I can't guarantee I can always find a solution, but I'm always happy to do my bit to help. The sorting works on the four common browsers I checked it with (FF, IE9, Chrome, Opera on Win7) and no doubt The Rambling Man will check it on the latest Safari on his Mac. You could always ask Gimmetoo if he still has his old copy of Safari 4.0 to check the sorting, but it should be fine.

I'm happy to support this nomination as I believe it satisfies our requirements for accessibility and usability. --RexxS (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments as usual, nice work.
  • Manchester is over linked in the lead.
    • One instance unlinked (the others are in titles of churches).
  • You only link "Saxon" of "Saxon features" but it links to an architecture article so I think it would be legitimate to link all of "Saxon features".
    • Fixed
  • The name of St Mark's you give here as just "St Mark". Is that conventional or should it really be "St Mark's"?
  • Same comment applies to all the others...
    • I think this is a convention. Pevsner and his collaborators, and Alec Clifton-Taylor, seem to use this style. It assumes "Church of"; using the possessive seems to require "Church" after it. And it avoids the complication of should it be ... s' or ... s's.
  • "monument to Francis Egerton" don't think there's a need to repeat Francis.
    • Fixed
  • Just a minor personal thing, I'd prefer to see all the images the same width, it looks a little untidy going from portrait to landscape...
    • I chose to do it this way because if the portrait images are the same with, they appear to be disproportionately big in comparison with the landscapes; too dominant for my personal liking. It also produces more white space in the Notes column. Centering the images helps to reduce any untidiness. I prefer to keep the images in better proportion and make a minor sacrifice to "tidiness", but am willing to change it if the consensus determines otherwise.
  • Don't think the C in Lady Chapel needs to be capitalised.
    • Fixed
  • " bomb damaged in" shouldn't bomb-damaged be hyphenated in this sense?
    • Fixed
  • Note: sorting works marvellously for me in Safari 5.1.7 on my Mac.
    • That's a relief!

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support now images are checked, and Bencherlite's (and my) pedantry has been satisfied, I'm happy to support the list, great work Peter. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comments from Bencherlite

Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 13:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another lovely list, of course. To add to TRM's comments:
  • "Buildings are listed on the recommendation of English Heritage to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who makes the decision whether or not to list the structure" --> perhaps "Buildings are listed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on the recommendation of English Heritage"
    • Much neater; amended.
  • When you're fixing "Saxon features" as TRM suggests, you could do the same for "Norman material" (lead and table)
    • Done
  • I think the third paragraph would be best swapped with the second - the third para is more relevant than the second, which is just background detail
    • Swapped.
  • Can we avoid "region... regions" in the opening line of the second para? Perhaps "Greater Manchester is mainly urban, and is one of the most densely populated regions in Europe" (also cuts out the self-referential word "list")
    • Agree; fixed
  • You give the first names (or initials) for some but not all of the architects in your name-checking in the lead, which looks odd. If you wanted to vary the format slightly, you could do something like this (but I'm not forcing it on you!) "Churches from the 19th century include some of the finest works of the leading architects of the period: George Gilbert Scott (St Mark, Worsley), Alfred Waterhouse (St Elisabeth, Reddish), George Frederick Bodley (St Augustine, Pendlebury) and Charles Barry (All Saints, Whitefield)."
    • I like that idea: done
  • I don't think you really need to link [[Middle Ages|medieval]] in the lead or the table, as it's a common-enough term. I also wonder about "effigy", "sandstone", "slate", "parish church" - but I think you're probably right to link church terminology, even words like "nave" and "chancel" (I've been pulled up on this in the past on GA reviews and on balance I think linking those terms is preferable)
    • Not sure about this. Unlinking as you suggest would be fine for the reasonably knowledgeable Brit, but we have to look towards our more general readership. I know that WP is used a lot by schools, and I wonder if the pupils all know precisely what we mean by "medieval", or what an effigy is. And looking towards our international readers, not all may have sandstone and slate in their countries; and the term "parish church" may be a mystery in some parts of the world.
  • [[Tuscan order|Tuscan]] columns might be better relinked as [[Tuscan order|Tuscan columns]] (same for Ionic and Corinthian)
    • Fixed
  • I wonder whether you need to link any of the boroughs in the table, in fact - you link them in the lead, and if people want to click a location in the table, they're more likely to want to check the specific town than its borough
    • Agree: done
  • St Edmund Rochdale "and a cost £28,000"
    • Fixed
  • "Easter sepulchre" or "Easter Sepulchre"? WP's article has a capital "S" but I can't say that I've come across the term before - we don't get them in Anglesey!
    • Done

The sourcing looks excellent but I've not double-checked the details yet, nor have I checked the images (although I can't imagine that there's going to be anything too badly wrong with them). I look forward to continuing this review and supporting in due course. BencherliteTalk 22:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Thanks to you both for your detailed advice. I admire the trouble you have taken to look at the detail; I find this sort of work horribly boring, which is why I do little in the way of reviewing. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: No copyright related problems found. Goodraise 15:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – "Churches from the 19th century include some of the finest works of the leading architects of the period: include...". Second "include" seems redundant, and it is grammatically incorrect on top of that. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry; it was left in by accident following a recent edit. Deleted. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query An editor has changed all the file sizes to 100px, without any discussion. What is the consensus opinion about the disproportionate appearance of the churches now? I think The Rambling Man prefers it like this. I don't like the disparity, but will of course accept the consensus. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer it this way, yes, as I noted in my review, but I certainly wouldn't want to enforce it, so I'm happy either way. (That doesn't really help, does it?!) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like both of the two versions, so I'm not much help in deciding either. I suppose it's worth remembering that the thumbnails are only meant to give an impression of the church in each case, and a much larger image is only one click away for those who want to examine detail. I'd advise you, Peter, not to worry about it. This is a remarkably fine article and it loses nothing by small variations in the width of the portrait-oriented images. I've looked at both versions at several different screen resolutions and although one or the other may look slightly better at very low or very high resolutions, there's no clear winner for me across the range. --RexxS (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both. I'll leave it as it is, then. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Couldn't find a fault with it. Great work. GRAPPLE X 23:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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_list_candidates/Grade_I_listed_churches_in_Greater_Manchester/archive1&oldid=1089081308"