Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of places of worship in Crawley/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 Matthewedwards 07:12, 11 April 2009 [1].

List of places of worship in Crawley[edit]

Nominator(s): Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)
Toolbox

This is a comprehensive list of all places of worship in Crawley, a medium-sized town and borough in Southern England. I have tried to keep the use of churches' own websites to a minimum (and in any case to verify uncontroversial info only). The three missing pictures will be taken soon! This is intended to be a precursor to a nom of a similar but much larger and more ambitious list, so all feedback will be gratefully received. Thanks, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment

  • No need to bold title if "the title of a page is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text" per WP:BOLDTITLE
→Fixed Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The borough of Crawley, in West Sussex, England, has many churches, chapels and other places of worship. - many is unclear, just put the exact number if possible
→I'll think about how best to reword this Actually I've just gone for your suggestion, as it seemed the most sensible Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13th-centuryparish churches - need a space
→Oops – I didn't spot that typo: thanks. Fixed Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks good—Chris! ct 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I notice the area measurement in the lead is not consistent with the British (American) format used throughout.
→Good spot: I always mix up distances! Km² and mi² swapped in the lead accordingly Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards asked me to revisit this FLC due to recent criteria change and I still think it fulfills the criteria, so I stand by my support.—Chris! ct 05:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you didn't mind my moving the list; lists' names usually start "List of...". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

→No, that's fine; tomorrow I'll do the same to the other similar list I mentioned above (which had actually started life as a prose-style article before I listified it). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 00:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
General
→Now fixed: I hadn't realised I'd missed one instance of "belfry". Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Most of its 44.96 km2 (17.36 sq mi) area is covered by the New town of Crawley, which was planned in the 1940s and built during the next four decades. -- next should be following
→Done. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • The New town development consisted of self-contained neighbourhoods, each of which had at least one Anglican church. -- is New supposed to be capitalized?
→Yes, as it is referring to Crawley's status as a "New Town" under the New Towns Act 1946. Accordingly, "Town" should actually be capitalised as well, which I have done. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New Towns Act 1946 should be pipelinked or linked in the paragraph.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→Done. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 10:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new, purpose-built temple is under construction in the Ifield area, and is expected to open in late 2009. -- remove the comma after new
  • Oh, true. I think they mean multi-purpose built?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→"Purpose-built" is meant in the sense of "with a dedicated purpose", as opposed to the current Hindu temple which was not built specifically for that use. I can remove it if that is preferred, as it doesn't really add a great deal to the sentence. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it would be best to remove it.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→Done. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 10:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Places of worship
  • The notes need copyediting because some of them are not complete sentences, and those that aren't have full stops which should not be there
→I have edited throughout to convert all stubs to full sentences. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance it looks good.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 sections below table
  • What are these not above the table?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→I thought the order of the article looked better that way: Lead, historical development, demographics, then the most important part (the main list); then the last two paragraphs giving what is effectively supplementary information. It doesn't seem logical to discuss communities with no church of their own before coming on to the main list. Likewise with the airport chapels. I will move them above the list if that is preferred for style reasons, though. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, cool.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Good work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 19:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support definitely a good article, at this points, honestly, I'm sorry I can't suggest much to modify, as it's already pretty OK. Not necessary, but maybe wouldn't have been a bad idea, would have been a distinct column with the years of construction; but I understand this would have depleyed the notes tomuch in some cases.--Aldux (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues (includes resolved naming discussion), Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Really nice article.
  • I'd rather that England not be linked; per WP:OVERLINK, common geographic locations should not be linked.
→Fair point; unlinked accordingly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 09:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and 1.1% and Hindu" Typo?
→Should be "are"; corrected. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 09:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terms should only be linked on their first occurence, and only those that are uncommon to the reader and that help understanding. For example, I don't think World War II should be linked. "Convent" should only be linked on its first appearance. Same with "Listed building", under its various pipe links (link it twice, once to Grade 1 and once to Grade II*).
→I think all instances of multiple linking have been removed. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 09:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the two remaining in Crawley"-->of the two that remain in Crawley
→Changed. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 09:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Crawley which do not worship at a building"-->in Crawley that do not worship at a building
→Oops; bit of an ugly one there. Corrected. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 09:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "London" I don't think this should be linked either. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→Unlinked as above. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 09:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about name Why is it "churches and places of worship"? Is a church not a place of worship? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

→Some of the places of worship aren't (Christian) churches. "List of places of worship..." would be an alternative, but as the majority are Christian churches of various descriptions, I felt that "Churches and places of worship" covered the whole topic well. I am willing to rename to "List of places of worship..." if it is felt appropriate. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 09:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the latest comments; I will do another sweep through the article in ~3 hours in case I have missed any of Dabomb's points. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 09:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care one way; I just want consistency and conciseness. I will ask on WT:FLC for more opinions. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply List of places of worship in Crawley seems fine to me. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, List of places of worship in Crawley is good.—Chris! ct 02:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→Moved accordingly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 15:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments -please forgive me if I mention something that has been discussed already, these are my feelings coming at the list raw.
    • A shame the lead can't have an image instead of the show/hide box. It doesn't draw me into reading it at the moment...
→ I thought about this for quite a while (before and during FLC). See my comment at the bottom. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crawley article suggests people had moved in by 1949, but your lead suggests no work was done until the 1950s.. or am I missing anything? (probably!)
→ Probably needs rewording, because the meaning I intended was that building started in the late 1940s (after the master plan was finalised) and continued until the 1980s, when Crawley assumed its present 13-neighbourhood form. Having said that, only a few streets (literally) from the master plan had been completed by 1949! Essentially, I didn't mean "the following four decades" in its strictest sense. I don't want to make that sentence/passage too convoluted, so advice on rewording would be welcome. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cite the neoconformism but not the town area (which you provide very accurately!). I would like to see the source for that information.
→ Added Census data about population density, which shows the size in hectares. Corrected a small rounding error as well. Hope that will be suitable as a ref. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You spell out "square metres" in the prose but not "square kilometres" (in the second sentence of the lead). I would prefer to see consistency.
→ Done; forgot to add "abbr=on" parameter for the square metres. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As of the 2001 ..." I would re-write as "According to the 2001..." but that's a personal preference.
→ Agreed; changed accordingly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a mix of "This church is..." and "The church was built.." kind of thing in the Notes column. I'd prefer a single style of building description throughout.
→ Hmmm ... I think that would only work properly if the notes were very short (one sentence or so). It would look very monotonous; and the descriptions for some of the churches would not really fit into that sort of structure (e.g. for Crawley Baptist Church, a chronological description seems to work best). If a standardised form is considered better for the general reader, though, I'm willing to adapt the text accordingly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Planning permission was refused in November 2008 but was granted again in January 2009." granted again? Had it previously been granted before being refused then?
→ Yes. "Withdrawn" would make more sense than "refused", on reflection, so I have changed. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The table is sortable, so perhaps you ought to relink things you've linked once, like "grade X-listed" as once resorted, no guarantee exists that the first instance of such will be the linked one.
→ Originally, I had more instances linked; but I was asked to remove all duplicated wikilinks (seee Dabomb's comments). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...other activities take place elsewhere in the neighbourhood...." a rather general statement. What do you mean by this?
→ Beefed up a bit with info from the church website. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page ranges in the references need an en-dash, e.g. ref [4] has 91-92 where it ought to have 91–92.
→ I think I've corrected all instances. Are there any snazzy gadgets or scripts to check dashes? – I'm thinking about implications for other lists I've done! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope these help. Feel free to shout at me if you wish to discuss them further. Since you may be about to embark on an heroic mission of more, similar lists, we should work hard to get this one perfected. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your detailed comments and observations. As you correctly guessed, I hope to produce more of this type of list, and this one will be the prototype; indeed, the next gargantuan one is nearing a FLC-ready stage, and I can think of three more districts/boroughs that I am ready to "cover". This one does need to establish some robust conventions, therefore. Regarding a lead image, here are some possibilities; I am open to any, and would appreciate your views and those of others.
  1. One thumbnail image of St John the Baptist's Church (the parish church of Crawley).
  2. One thumbnail image of St Nicholas (the oldest and most architecturally important).
  3. Two or more thumbnails.
  4. A map showing Crawley within West Sussex and/or within England.
  5. A map of the borough showing the neighbourhoods.
  6. Some combination of those.
  7. Something else!
Would it be acceptable to duplicate an image already used in the table? If not, I have shots taken from other angles. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WeakSupport - sorry for not getting back to you, real life has been pounding my skull lately. So, I think you've done really well to address my concerns, the only outstanding issue (which I can't oppose for, since it's not one of the criteria) is a lead image. I would be happy to see an image that isn't necessarily repeated, nor a pair etc, but perhaps just a really nice image of one of the subjects of the list. I understand that people may perhaps complain that it would give undue weight to one of the places of worship, but it would certainly make the list much much more attractive to a passing reader if there was something other than text for the first screen's worth. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→ Many thanks for your comments. Going through my pics again, I found a nice one showing a different view of St Nicholas' Church. As it is the oldest and arguably most architecturally important in the Borough, it seems like a reasonable choice, so I have uploaded and added. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 10:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quadell's suggestions
Resolved comments from Quadell
  • Is the "Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque" the same as the "Broadfield Islamic Centre and Mosque"? This isn't clear. And what's a "purpose-built facility"?
→ It's part of it. I have reworded (and removed the phrase "purpose-built") to clarify. The name "Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque" is ref'd to the Crawley Borough Council website. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For both mosques, do you have any info on their use as an "Islamic center", similar to the info in "Christ the Lord"? Are the mosques Sunni or Shia? Are there any other official associations with specific Muslim denominations?
→ Unfortunately there is remarkably little info about the centres, either online or in reports/books etc. I have managed to confirm the traditions, though (both Sunni). I have searched thoroughly but have found no more Muslim associations within Crawley. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay; many U.S. mosques aren't any more specific than "Shia". – Quadell (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "A Baptist church plant was established" correct grammar? Should it be "A Baptist congregation was initially planted..."? I'm not familiar enough with the term to know for sure.
→ Yes, it's a noun phrase meaning the entity that is created by an act of church planting. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think "planting" and "establishing" were synonyms, so that a planting wouldn't be established. But nomenclatures don't always make sense. :) – Quadell (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "the village had been rendered uninhabitable by the expansion of Gatwick Airport" needs a source.
→ Added one from one of Goldsmith's books. Although its title suggests a rather picture-heavy book, it does have decently comprehensive and well-researched text. I do have other sources if this is not considered robust enough, though. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, you should slim the notes for "St Francis & St Anthony's" down to "Harry Stuart Goodhart-Rendel built this church on a town-centre site in 1959. It is currently being renovated, and is in the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton's Crawley Parish, consisting of six churches in Crawley and a convent chapel in Copthorne." The rest, I think, should go into a new stub on the church itself.
→ Reduced to four lines (I kept the Capuchin Friars snippit). Actually, I have literally just found out that the church was very recently awarded Grade II listed status, so as part of my drive to write articles for as many of Crawley's listed buildings as possible I will need to do a full article :) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, the notes for "St Michael and All Angels" could also be slimmed down.
→ Three sentences now; looks a bit shorter. I think all three are equally relevant, so further pruning might be difficult. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notes about "St Richard of Chichester" seem to mostly be about the church it replaced, right? That's not relevant. Just have one sentence on what it replaced, not 4 1/2, and expand info on "St Richard of Chichester" itself.
→ Unfortunately there is little other info about the new church. I have tried to improve the balance. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Siri Guru Singh Sabha Gurdwara, the phrase "considered inadequate" needs to be sourced. Also, that first sentence needs to be reworded, as in "The Sikh community of Crawley meet in a low, single-storey structure, built in 1982. 200–250 worshippers regularly attend from a wide area, since the temple serves Sikhs across a 25-mile (40 km) radius, and ___ has raised concerns that the meeting place is inadequate." Or something.
→ Reworked (thanks for the suggestion; that prose looks cleaner). I removed the word "inadequate", which featured in the planning app but was not ascribed to anybody in particular. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What denomination is the "Crawley Family Church"?
→ From its website, it appears not to be aligned to any Christian denomination. I have wikilinked to Non-denominational Christianity accordingly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the development committee? Who appointed it, and who was on it? These questions probably don't need to be answered in this article, but there should be a link to an article that answers them. Information such as "25% of the price" probably belongs in that article instead.
→ I have elaborated in the History section and wikilinked Development Corporation. I may do a separate Crawley Development Corporation article later, as it is sufficiently notable as a separate entity. "Committee" was a typo for "Corporation", incidentally (now corrected). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: I think a pie chart of the religious affiliations would be helpful.
→ Can do, but I'm worried that it would either overlap the next section header and play havoc with the table or would be too small to read. (Assuming it is put in the religious affiliations section.) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of "Communities with no dedicated building" brings up an issue: several listed "places of worship" are also community centers, and so are not really buildings "used solely for religious purposes". Is there a better way to word the distinction between places on the list and places not on the list?
→ Not exactly; the two mosques are primarily places of worship, although they seem to host some general community/non-worship-related activities as well (so they are specifically religious, rather than secular, buildings); and the Broadfield situation is a separate church within a community centre complex. I have added a bit in the lead (the reference to "secular buildings") which I hope makes the distinction clearer. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, but it mentions things not contained elsewhere: For instance, it describes the New Towns Act and gives dates and details that should really be in the "Development" section. It talks about Ifield being a center for non-conformism, which should probably be in the "Religious affiliation" section. Basically, everything in the lead needs to be elsewhere in the article, and every section of the article (communities with no building, airport, etc.) needs to be at least mentioned in the lead. It could use a sentence about the "religious affiliation" (demographics), e.g. "Crawley has places of worship for several religions. Although majority Christian, Crawley has larger Muslim and Hindu populations than England as a whole." Or something. As a more minor point, I find the second sentence of the lead to be bulky and unclear.
→ I have rewritten the lead and second para (now renamed to fit the content better) and moved some bits around. I think all concerns have been covered. In doing this, the clunky second sentence problem was eliminated as well. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all the problems I mentioned in the lead have been fixed. But since it was so thoroughly redone, I'll need to look over it carefully, to make sure it's perfect, when I'm more awake. All other problems with the list have been resolved. – Quadell (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope these help! All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful comments. I will address remaining issues tomorrow (Saturday). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great work so far! – Quadell (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great list. Well done! – Quadell (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the new FL criteria, this list is still up to those standards. Still support.--Truco 14:55, 9 April 2009 (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/List_of_places_of_worship_in_Crawley/archive1&oldid=1143898950"