Talk:Chester Cathedral

Assessment Report
Peter I. Vardy 13:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The article needs to be expanded.
 * 2) It should continue to make use of sections.
 * 3) References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

Moved from mainspace
I moved this paragraph - the work of a rather opinionated editor. We need some references for this is we're going to put it back in.
 * "Due to the tapered shape of the tower, the very elevated location and steep angle of the louvers, the fact that the bell frame is placed directly on to the concrete support girders, and the two concrete floors between the bells and bell ringers, the acoustics of the bells are very poor, both outside for the general public and inside for the ringers. Outside the bells are deafening in the close vicinity of the tower, yet barely audible at the grand west doors of the Cathedral. Inside, the bells are very indistinct due to the concrete floors and the lack of padding between the frame and concrete girders."

--Mcginnly | Natter 17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also moving the organist's roll-call - WP:NOT a directory.

Organists
(Note: Names deleted because they are duplicated below - see Moved from the article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

--Mcginnly | Natter 17:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Images
I'm on an ongoing programme photographing Chester cathedral - I'll post them here for selective inclusion in the article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (legit sock of user:mcginnly)

If anyone's interested the restoration of the chapter house glass can be seen in real time here - although I've been watching it for 3 days and have yet to see any work being done - perhaps they're on holiday :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Chester Cathedral again
I think that there's lots to like about this article, and the interior photos are simply great. It's obviously not a million miles away from a credible GA nomination, but if I was the reviewer I'd be critical of two things. First of all I'd say that there were too many short sentences - yes, I know what you're going to say, but bear with me. ;-) Secondly I'd say that the short sentences result in there being no real flow in some of the prose, making it read a little bit disjointedly; this, then this, then this. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'll have a go.  I suspect I am stronger on content than on style! Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of copyediting on this article, but there are one or two places where I don't feel certain enough about what's being said to make any changes. For instance: "The organ was later re-erected in its present position at the front of the north transept. In 1910 William Hill & Son of London extensively rebuilt and revoiced it, replacing the Cavaillé-Coll reeds with new pipes of their own. The choir organ was enlarged and moved behind the choirstalls on the south side. The instrument was again overhauled by Rushworth & Dreaper of Liverpool in 1969, when a new mechanism and some new pipework made to a design drawn up by Roger Fisher was installed." Are we talking about two organs here, the organ and the choir organ, or just one?

I've got a suggestion to make as well. I found the Cathedral section a bit difficult to follow without having any idea of the layout of the cathedral. Would it be possible to include a floor plan of the cathedral? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It shows the value of a pair of outside eyes. Although what I said about the organ is what the source says, in fact the choir organ is a division of the main organ (and I can verify that from attendance at organ recitals); text amended accordingly.  Your idea of a plan is excellent (maybe essential) but I have a problem with including one.  I do not have the expertise to produce one myself and to copy one may run into copyright difficulties.  The best plan I have found is at Chester Tourist but I am pretty sure this is under copyright, and I have no clue how to satisfy the obligation of a fair use rationale. The one at National Image Library I think demands a fee. There are older, probably out of copyright, but much less clear plans such as Intaglio Fine Art and Ash Rare Books and, perhaps the best "oldie" (dated 1893) at Images of Medieval Art and Architecture.  What do you think?  Thanks for the contributions made so far.  Oh, and I should like to use the image of the exquisite choir canopy and a misericord on Talk:Chester Cathedral - but how do you fit it all in (maybe swap it with the one of the ceiling)? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Chester Tourist plan looks perfect. My understanding is that we draw an image ourselves, based on that one, then there are no copyright problems. I'll have a go at producing one if you like. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that would be ideal. Hope it does not take too much valuable time.  Peter Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made a start on the plan, and I'll hopefully be able to upload something tomorrow, but Monday at the latest. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No rush. I meant to say "too much of your valuable time"! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've finished it, and added it to the article. If you see any errors, let me know. I wasn't sure whether to draw it in the same east-west orientation as the graphic on the cathedral's web site, or north-south as in most of the older maps, but I settled on east-west in the end. It would be very easy to rotate the graphic 90 degrees to produce a north-south orientation though, if there's some convention to do so. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent; many thanks. I prefer the orientation the way you have done it. I visited the cathedral this morning and have a bit more information which I will add when time allows. I was wondering about replacing the image of the choir ceiling with that of the choirstalls and misericord - these are well worth demonstrating (and to have both would be too crowded). What do you think? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Swapping the images sounds good to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it easier to do copyediting in bursts, coming back with a fresh eye from time to time, so I may make a few more suggestions, but I'd say that this article is definitely worth a punt a GA now. You've done a great job with it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done a bit more polishing and submitted it as a GAC. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. What an excellent job you've both done on the article - no Peter I've no problem with you swapping the images, however from a photographic point of view, the choirstall photo could be improved - I'm going to return soon and take a panoramic shot of the choir and rood screen, which might be a better alternative - I have a few shots of some of the carving there also - the 'elephant' with horses legs which is mentioned in the audio guide and also the erm....I think it's called the Deans chair....I'll have to check, I think it's in the guide book. I'll upload them and make a bit of a gallery on the talk page. I made a few alterations this morning - Pevsner had his dates muddled regarding when St John's was a cathedral - His dates related to when St. John was the sole cathedral - it then became a co-cathedral, but for simplicity in our article it seems better to say St. John's was the cathedral until the dissolution. Personally I wouldn't waste your time with GA and pitch straight at FA. From a style point of view, I hope you don't mind me saying, it is a little dry with description of the building and its contents - I'll see if I can dig up some blood and guts to spice it up a bit - perhaps a new section, the cathedral in history. I seem to remember a member of Chester cathedral's clergy was involved in a very public debate and mini media storm (a media squall?) a few years ago - I think she was born with a cleft palate and she objected to the right of parents to terminate pregnancies if this malady was detected.

I think your plan is pretty good Malleus, so I'm sorry to suggest this as I know you spent quite some time on it but......this plan confers better information regarding the various phases of the build, and the inclusion of the vaulting lines is really useful for architectural nerds such as myself. You actually picked me to the post regarding the plan - Although the plan I just linked to is actually in the public domain, my view is it needs a fairly extensive overdraw to make it sufficiently legible - colour etc. The other issue with your plan Malleus is that it might be better to exclude the text in english and just use numbers. That way we can still link the text in the image caption - but the plan can easily be trans-wiki'd to other languages. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you or Peter want to replace my plan with something else that's fine with me. I'm not wedded to it. :-) If we're going to stick with my version, then I'll be quite happy to remove the text, if there's general agreement to do that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a stab at another and we can make our minds up then. PS. seems the Rev. Joanna Jepson was the curate of St Michael's Church, Chester and so nothing to do with the Cathedral. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the clarity of M's plan. The older one (see my comment above) is the best I have found out there in the public domain.  As it is, it's rather overcrowded and, because of the constraints of Wikipedia, would not look good on first glance.  But if it can be clarified, that might be a better option.  I await the actions of the experts!


 * I agree about the dry style: with the content it's a bit difficult to cheer it up. Let's see how it gets on as a GAC and then if there's a will towards going for FAC, see what we and other editors come up with.  What do you think?  Oh, and is it possible to have the images (thanks J for even more) also on Commons?  I think people will be more likely to see them there via the commonscat link than to realise they are on the talk page.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a little wary of uploading to the commons - they seem to have odd ways of doing things over there sometimes - no fair use etc. I was also hoping to do the plan in a similar way to the clickable map here, but linking directly to the images. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The photos are too good to languish just on this page so I have incorporated them into a gallery in the article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A little spice
Ok I had a bit of a delve for some blood and guts to spice the text up a bit - my thoughts are here. I think the bwpics site will prove to be a questionable reference at FAC - so we'll need to independently verify those bits. Plan on the way.......--Joopercoopers (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that really is some work you've done! I've put my comments on the same page, interspersed with your ideas.  Sorry some of them are a bit negative.  If you think there's anything reliable and relevant to be added to the article, please do so.  Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Extra bits of information that could be added to the article
I've come across these bits of information, but I'm not sure how best to incorporate them in the article: More to come when I have the time... Mike Peel (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are Norman columns in the cellars that support the abbot's great hall (Home, p. 15)
 * Home p. 18 says that "the men of Hanbury fled to Chester in 1875, taking with them in a litter the body of St. Werburgh, which the chronicler avers "was then for the first time dissolved into dust". Her body was laid in the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, which was afterwards rededicated in her honour as the Church of St. Werburch and St. Oswald". Note that the date disagrees with by some 32 years...

GA Passed
This article has passed the GA noms. Further suggestions for improvements would be to add a section on the cultural significance of the church in its local community if possible. This article is otherwise well organized and well referenced and has potential to be FA-class. If you feel that this review was in error, feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Thanks. Tarret  ''talk 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great: the first GA I have worked on to be accepted with no quibbles. Thanks to all who have contributed, especially Malleus Fatuorum, and Joopercoopers for the superb photos. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Added to the Anglicanism portal. Congrats. -- Secisek (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was invited to do some work on this article months ago, but there was an edit war raging. I'm now trying to bring the architectural stuff up to scratch.
 * There is a piece of information that I want. About the Church of St Oswald, which operated as a separate entity. I want to know at whhat time this came about. I see four obvious possibilities, but the reason might be entirely different. Perhaps someone could research this locally.
 * The transept is huge, like a second nave. Was it in fact built as a discrete church?
 * Between 1538 and 1541 there was a two year gap when the monastery ceased to exist and before the cathedral was founded. Did the local congregation continue to use that part of the church?
 * Did it happen during the interregnum, when, I assume, havoc was wrought in the building, as it was elsewhere?. Congregations sometimes salvaged enough of the smashed glass to make a section of the building weatherproof and functional. However, I have no idea to what extent Chester suffered, except that its stalls miraculously remained unburnt.
 * Alternately, was there a parish church of St Oswald that was lost to fire, flood or other devastation, so that the cathedral came to the rescue of the homeless congregation?
 * The again, maybe they didn't like the Dean's sermons, and borded themselves up in the transept. Who knows?
 * Amandajm (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Cathedral plan
If there isn't going to be a better offering, then I suggest that that we adopt Joopercooper's suggestion (above) of deleting the text from the image and moving it to the caption. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that might be better, but I probably need to see it done before I am sure (sorry). If it makes it clearer, well and good. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I finally made this change! What do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's good; very clear. Well done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment
''The nave dates from the 12th to the 14th centuries, and has arcades of six bays. Richards comments that the design is "very mixed and lacks uniformity".[14] ''

This quotation appears to be the only description of the architecture of the nave, and, frankly, it is... well the term that one would use refers to the excrement of bovine beasts.

If this quote has been correctly made, and actually pertains to the nave, then Richard's POV (dating from the 1940s) is not worth tuppence. Anyone's eyes will tell them immediately that the design of the nave is not "very mixed", and neither does it "lack unity". It is an extremely uunified and harmonious design, this being made all the more remarkable by the fact that one side was not recommenced until more than a hundred years since work had stopped on the other side. In this case, the architects maintained the old design, a rare thing, in England!

So with all due respect, I am removing Richard's POV, and looking for one that does the building greater justice.

Amandajm (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Amanda - fancy seeing you here. Actually the nave is rather mixed - more specifically the aisles but the nave too. The north side was built first and the south followed some 200 years later I think in a stylistic copy, but there's also fragments of the original Romanesque Norman on the north side - and I have a feeling that the crossing columns were encased at later dates. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have returned my loaned copy of Richards so cannot check the context. But from memory, Richards was commenting on the cathedral as a whole rather than just the nave.  Perhaps I placed the sentence in a non-optimum context.  Applied to the whole cathedral, the comment rings true - and after all, Richards' book on Cheshire churches is (was) a standard text (that is not to say that on occasions he would have had his own point of view - he did).  I will try to have another look at Richards and check.


 * Also regarding the nave, I quote from Pevsner p. 15 ...the nave S side about 1360.  The N side was only dealt with about 1490, yet as a copy of the Late Dec work of the S side - sign of a remarkable and very English conservatism.  On p. 141 Pevsner points out that although the two sides are at first sight identical, there are subtle differences between the details of the arcades.  Thanks Amandajm for the good work you are doing.  I think it may be difficult to get answers to the queries about St Oswald's.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Re Richards comment, I think that the comment almost certainly pertained to the building as a whole. It is the consistency of the nnave that strikes one, not the other way around. This is regardless of differing details and the odd bit of Norman. In fact,, if one excludes the bits that one does not see from the centre of the west end of the nave, (the N. transept etc) then evenn the earlier choir is very harmonious with the later work. Having seen and photgraphed this building, I am surprised that Richards made such a comment. Given that we are talking about an English building. What would he say about Ely, I wonder? Aaargh! It's past Cinderella time in the big land downunder! I will get back to this, but maybe not tomorrow. I hope I haven't left too much of a mess!
 * Plan, I would like to sort the architecture from the fittings and memorials, then group them, by location, as they are now, but without the architecture mixed up in it. .... The south transept contains ya tomb, yo memorial, ye screen and yip window. Or do we do the stained glass under a seperate heading... maybe? Can someone please check my speeling and the dreaded dubbby-dupps? Amandajm (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good Grief, Peter I. Vardy! Did you only find 3 typos? Amandajm (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Amanda, will try harder next time. Incidentally I don't know which browser you use but Firefox has an optional add-on of a dictionary; this is useful to me because it puts a red line under anything not in the dictionary (it's American but you can add your own stuff to it) - this would draw your attention to typos and "dubby-dupps".  On the subject of St Oswald's, I found this and this with some references to the disputes between St Oswald's and the cathedral, but am not sure how useful this is to the article and how it illuminates the relationship between this parish church and the cathedral. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My sons keep trying to get me to use firefox! One solution that I have is to edit in word, and then paste. As for St Oswald's, it seems as if they were already there during the reign of Edward. It would be very interesting to know how the South transept was laid out as a church. I wonder if there are any signs. Probably not, because of the extensive restoration!


 * On the score of Richards, it is entertaining just how dreadfully opinionated some of the writers were. Alec Clifton-Taylor is a very entertaining read, but he has pet hates- he detested the Victorians and everything that they did. He rejoiced when the choir screen at Salisbury was pulled out, and urged for the one at Worcester to go, as well. He loathed 19th century glass and could find a choice rannge of adjectives to describe it. John Harvey is another matter, First and foremost, he was an historian.
 * Something that I find amazing, and even distressing is that in the 60s and 70s there was on one hand a great mmove to "restore" churches by ripping out Victorian fittings, without regard for the fact that the old fittings that they replaced had usually been burnt or otherwise destroyed. And while this was happening, there was an equally strong movement to decorate churches with Modern glass and fittings. The difference being that while the Victorians didn't always get it right, they did strive to make things harmonious. Designers in the 2nd half of the 20 century often had no such consideration. The dark blue modern windows across the eastern end of Salisbury, a cathedral with hardly a pane of blue glass, but everything green, white, brown and red. YuK! It was an act of achitectural vandalism almost as bad as the Blue's Point Tower. Amandajm (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Question
Many of the windows and objects state that they are "dated" 1868 (or whatever date). This form should only be used if they date is actually on the object itself. Am I to presume that where this wording is used, that this is indeed the case? Otherwise we can say "dating from" if the date is documented, but not on the object itself.

Dates on stained glass windows can be very misleading. They sometimes commemorate someone who died 20 years earlier. One wishes that they would all sign and date them properly, but they hardly ever do. It's a real hassle. Oh yes, and Pevsner... he was really bad at attributing stained glass. It's a pity, because he had a lot of credibility. A lot of his attributions have stuck, so that when you come along and say, no, that's not Clayton and Bell, that's Lavers, Barraud and Westlake, it seems like an impertinence. Amandajm (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Next Question

About the communion plate- it is discussed under "Lady Chapel". Does this imply that it is displayed in the Lady Chapel? Or is it in the sacristy? Or what? Amandajm (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have tried to include all the info. Please let me know if I have made glaring errors or admissions! Amandajm (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I take the point about "dated" - my laziness I suppose. Something I don't understand; there is a heading "Stained glass" and then the glass is discussed all over the place.  Does it merit a separate sub-section?  If so, why not include all the stained glass within it?  I expect the communion plate is kept in a safe.  It was not originally, as suggested, discussed under "Lady Chapel", but rather as a separate paragraph under "Cathedral".


 * If this is to go towards FA, from my own bitter experiences in the process, I suspect all sorts of criticisms as it stands today. Here are some examples.  Paragraphs too short.  No inline citations at the end of every paragraph.  Inconsistences in referencing; particularly in that page numbers are not given for the references in Clifton-Taylor, Tatton-Brown and Cook, and Harvey, while page numbers are given for Pevsner, Starkey, Sheehan and Richards.  Any chance of the page numbers being included in the "Notes" and the books being added to the Bibliography? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I share that concern Peter. As it stands, great though it is, it would get a hammering at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've started work on it, but fatigue has won for today. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work Peter!
 * About the changes- A great deal of info has come from the English Heritage Monuments Record. This is a highly formulated description which moves around the building directionally and makes bald statements that are factual definitions, not architectural or artistic analyses. The formula does not link architecture to architecture, or relate to function or art form. And it isn't a very effective tourist guide. But it does provide a lot of precise information, though not in a very accessible oor readble form.
 * I have improved on that by firstly dealing with the building as a work of architecture, and taking it historically, rather than the other option of "tourist guide", "Entry by the south west porch, built in 1066 and with a fan vault by Sir GGS in 1866...proceeding to the south aisle...."
 * In its present form the article deals with the architecture by historical period, and then the description moves on to the details, commencing with a brief overview of the two most singular features.
 * There is then a paragraph which attempts to give a brief overview of the range of glass to be found, to indicate whether it is Medieval, Renaissance, Victorian or Modern. If there are any intact Medieval or Renaissance windows, they need to be mentioned among the important features, not just described at their location.
 * The description thenn looks at areas of the building and describes the features of each, inclluding the individual windows. Tombs are grouped with tombs, and windows with windows. In places, this accounts for the short paragraphs in each section.


 * With regards to citations, facts are facts. Those that are not questionable because the evidence is clearly present in the building itself do not require citation. In such a case, the building presents a primary source which is of an indisputable nature. For example, the fact that there is a piscina in the south transept is hardly questionable and doesn't need a citation. Neither do the facts that the nave has a stellar vault, that the windows have drip mouldings, and that there is a triforium in the choir.
 * The sorts of things that do need citation are those facts and claims that someone might query or challenge, for example the fact that the vaults (with the exception of that in the Lady Chapel) are wood and not stone, the claim that the consistory court is "unique" and the POV that the choirstalls are among the finest in the country. Dates, measurements and the authorship of individual works such as stained glass windows need citations for their sources. However, I am not prepared to attempt to cite every indisputable fact.
 * Unfortunately, although I (and many others) love Chester Cathedral and think it is beautiful and interesting, the leading historians of Medieval architecture largely ignore it, because it has been so extensively restored. Clifton-Taylor provides only a small amount of valuable information, but with one fantastic quote, re the stalls. In the case of ACT and JH, providing page numbers is not a problem as much of the info comes from a single page in both cases. Will fix.
 * My POV.
 * The tracery of the south transept window is exquisite. I presume that the design (though probably not much of the stonework) is original. Is there an author we can quote on this? The glass also suits the window very well. It must look glorious around Easter time.
 * The tracery of the east window is contemporary with that of Ripon, and very similar in style, being one step forward from the tracery in the chapter houses of York and Southwell, and all much more inventive than that of the chapter house at Salisbury by Richard Mason, who had been on the job for 20 years by that time. Any comment? Amandajm (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the improvements, in particular the page numbers. I thoroughly approve of the split between "Architecture" and "Fittings & Furniture" and the non-tourist approach. I agree on your comments about citing everything, but FAC assessors don't. I am going to re-borrow Richards' book and see if any answers are there - but I have a break coming up soon, so it may take time. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad you approve! Re references- there are two "fact" tags on the article on stuff that I didn't write. I've looked back to see if I accidentally lost the references along thhe way, but I don't seem to have. One is the Roman legion. The other is ...I can't remember, it might be the ID of a stained glass artist or something. It is probably Pevsner or English Heritage but I don't know. If someone knows the sources for these two facts, it would be great if they would add them. Amandajm (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference
I found one of the missing references, but I'm not sure how to format it so it works properly. I'll leave it for someone else to fix! Amandajm (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The Abbey
There seems to be more than enough information about St Werburgh's Abbey to justify an article of its own. Any objections to a split of this article? Charles Matthews (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is enough information, a separate article about the Abbey would be a good idea. The history section of this article would of course have to be amended, and we must be careful not to adversely affect its GA status. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree
 * From the point of view of both History and Architectural History, that is not the right way to go. If you split the article, I would be looking to have the article demoted as failing to cover the topic.
 * From an architectural point of view, the Chapter House and Cloister are always treated as part of the cathedral architecture, not as separate entities and not as a separate monastic unit.
 * The abbey church, ie Chester Cathedral, is part of the abbey complex. You cannot write about the "abbey" as a discrete unit without writing about the abbey church which belongs to it. The monks served the church, the cloister served the church, the chapter house served the church, the refectory served the church.
 * However, there is no problem with reusing material from one wiki article within another article if it is relevannt. There is an article on Werburgh where some of the information should be added.


 * I think the word "split" is causing a problem. Of course you cannot split the architecture section into "abbey" and "cathedral" and remove the abbey part into a separate article; that would be nonsense. But the cathedral did not exist until 1541.  Before that St Werburgh's Abbey was tremendously important, being the first religious house to be established in the earldom of Chester.  I do not see that a separate article on the abbey, stopping in 1541 other than a reference to its becoming a cathedral, would cause a problem.  So far as this article on the cathedral is concerned, all that would be needed would be some reduction in the first two paragraphs of the history section, and maybe a tweak of the lead, leaving the rest as it is.  However if the "split" meant more than that to this article, I too would strongly oppose. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's been discussion on similar lines at talk:Peterborough Cathedral, though nothing's actually happened to the article there yet. David Underdown (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that it would be a mistake to reduce the history section, except in a ver minimal way. The History of the Abbey is the history of the site. A statement of the major changes is usually part of the history of any cathedral.
 * On the other hand, if there really is enough material available to write a whole article on St Werburgh's, without simply cutting and pasting what is here, then it is a worthwhile topic in its own right. Do you have access to other information that would make a full article?
 * David U, I will take a look at Peterborough. I know quite a lot about Peterborough Cathedral, but I haven't bought into that one yet. Amandajm (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image
Although there's an image of the nave looking towards the choir, I thought the late 19th century image on the right, which shows more detail of the choir, might be useful. Nev1 (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved from the article
I have moved the following from the main page; it is not appropraite for a GA, being in list form rather than prose, and is uncited. It could form the basis for a separate list, if citations can be found. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

List of organists

 * 1541 John Brycheley
 * 1551 Thomas Barnes
 * 1558 Richard Saywell
 * 1567 Robert White
 * 1570 Robert Stevenson
 * 1599 Thomas Bateson
 * 1609 John Alien
 * 1613 Michael Done
 * 1614 Thomas Jones
 * 1637 Richard Newbold
 * 1642 Randolph Jewitt


 * 1661 Rev. Peter Stringer
 * 1673 John Stringer
 * 1686 William Key
 * 1699 John Mounterratt
 * 1705 Edmund White
 * 1715 Samuel Davies
 * 1726 Benjamin Worrall
 * 1727 Edmund Baker
 * 1765 Edward Orme
 * 1776 John Bailey
 * 1803 Edward Bailey


 * 1823 George Black
 * 1824 Thomas Haylett
 * 1841 Frederick Gunton
 * 1877 Joseph Cox Bridge
 * 1925 J. T. Hughes
 * 1930 Charles Hylton Stewart
 * 1932 Malcolm Courtenay Boyle
 * 1949 James Roland Middleton
 * 1964 John Sanders
 * 1967 Roger Fisher
 * 1997 David Poulter
 * 2008 Philip Rushforth

Assistant organists

 * Herbert Stephen Irons 1873 - 1876
 * John Gumi
 * JT Hughes


 * Guillaume Ormond 1925 - 1926 (later organist of Truro Cathedral)
 * James Roland Middleton 1934 - 1944 (later organist of Chelmsford Cathedral)
 * George Guest 1944 - 1947
 * Brian Runnett 1955 - 1960
 * Peter White 1960 - 1962
 * John Belcher 1967 - 1971


 * John Keys 1975 - 1978
 * Simon Russell
 * John Cooper Green
 * Lee Ward ???? - 1989
 * Graham Eccles 1989 - 1998


 * Philip Stopford 2000 - 2003 (now organist of St Anne’s Cathedral, Belfast)
 * Ian Roberts

See also the List of Organ Scholars at Chester Cathedral.


 * Comment I would like to support the suggestion that this material is turned into a separate List. That way, more info can be added.

See List of works by Leonardo da Vinci for example. Amandajm (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Problem: where is the info published? Find that and a list is feasible. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Where has the information come from? If no single list exists that can be cited, then it must have all been gleaned from separated sources, each of which must be cited individually. Amandajm (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC push
FAC is a bit of a nonsense these days in my opinion - our best work is simply defined in terms of how well it conforms to a formatting standard and whether or not it has a sufficiently adjective-less prose style. Nonetheless - this article is probably not far from it. If other's are interested, I'm quite happy to do some work to bring it up to the start and handle the 'pedantry process'. Anyone interested?

I think most of my images have been used in the article and whilst they're not bad, they were taken when I was new to my camera and didn't have a very wide angle lens - I feel I could probably do better these days, so when the weather starts shining, I'll pop over and get some more. As a person with an interest in architecture, I'm also thinking it would be better if the illustrations could almost catalogue the whole building.

Do do this, we are traditionally limited by the space afforded by the text, but for a while now, I've been thinking that the electronic medium might better serve architecture article than it presently does at WP. We have the facility to produce a plan which when clicked on specific areas can link to other parts of the encyclopaedia. I've used it here to jump from the map to various paragraphs in the text. I'm not proposing that in the Chester Cathedral article. But rather, the creation of a separate Images of Chester Cathedral article, which one could jump to from the map. Wouldn't it be nice to click a plan and see each stained glass window? They'd hate it at FAC, but I'd rather like to see the reaction. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter I. Vardy, who's put a lot of work into this article, currently has Norton Priory at FAC so who knows how much time he'll have. The article looks in good shape though. I think your suggestion regarding images is a very interesting one; I can't think of anything like it on Wikipedia. It's traditional for all the images that don't fit in an article to be shuffled off to Commons with a link right at the bottom of the article, but that seems a bit too low profile for me. For it to work properly, it would have to be a pretty comprehensive catalogue of photographs but I think it would certainly be worthwhile. Nev1 (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I should be delighted to have this article accepted as a FA. While I would not be prepared to nominate it (and take all the flak that goes with that) I should certainly support any nomination and be prepared to work with the nominee.  One personal problem I've had with the article is that Malleus and I worked well together to get it accepted as a GA, then another editor came along and made considerable changes AFTER it was accepted.  I am not comfortable with all the changes, but they are not incompatible with working it up towards FA.


 * I'm fascinated by the "clickable plan" and I'm intrigued by the idea of an article (separate from this) in the format suggested; it would take WP articles into a new dimension. At the moment WP is just like an old-type encyclopedia with text and a few images.  The use of technology in the way you suggest could lead to a "new" type of encyclopedia article that would be much more interesting (and informative) than the current style (although non-technical editors like myself would have difficulty in contributing to it - but what about the next generation?).  Have a go!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You might like to post at the Cheshire project about this, as there might be active editors there who don't watch this page -- me for one! Espresso Addict (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now the plan is near completion - will do. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Auto Peer review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Joopercoopers (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]
 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Citation problem
Does anyone know why Nuttal, Clifton Taylor and a few others link from the notes to the biblio correctly, but the rest don't seem to work? --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I just had a go, and they seemed to work. Amandajm (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah well, a very nice chap came to fix them all after I posted the problem on ANI. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still working on the plan, but in the mean time here's some CC images on Flickr which might be appropriate for the gallery+. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicholassmale/3804191818/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/eregis/3129431440/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/chelmsfordblue/2403337373/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/11600215@N02/3709487412/in/photostream/

Revised Plan
This is approaching completion so I'm posting it here for comments before it is. Work still to do includes:
 * 1) Colour coding the structure to get rid of the grey and differentiate the romanesque, early-mid-late gothic and modern additions
 * 2) Some drawing work around the windows in general and the cloisters and choir in particular.
 * 3) Labelling - Amanda, your input on this would be appreciated. I also intend to add labels a,b,c etc. to denote the location of particular features eg. the Bishop's thrown, font, Monument to the 1st duke of westminster, the various chapel, organ, etc.
 * 4) Add the modern entrance, gift shop and WCs. and find a plan for the song school additions - or guess them.

I've given it a slightly sketchy hand-drawn feel - I think a lot of images on WP look too 'harsh' - any news, view or opinions? --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Beautiful Plan!
 * What a wonderful lot of detail you have put in! All the vaults....how fantastic!
 * About the numbering:
 * I think that it is a real mistake to go outside the cathedral for the monastic buildings and then come back inside to number the choir aisle and chapel. This is a inconsistency.
 * I understand why you have given the south transept a low number; it is a very significant feature. However, with the aisles, I thing you need to move right down one aisle, then down the other. Probably doing south before north. Memorial Garden needs to be last.


 * 1) West door (or west front)
 * 2) South tower & Consistory court
 * 3) North tower
 * 4) Nave
 * 5) Crossing/central tower (whichever)
 * 6) Choir
 * 7) Lady Chapel
 * 8) South porch
 * 9) South ailse
 * 10) South transept
 * 11) South door
 * 12) South choir ailse/chapel
 * 13) North aisle
 * 14) North transept
 * 15) North Choir aisle
 * 16) North Chapel (whatever its name is)
 * 17) I would tend to number the Vestibule before the Chapter house
 * 18) Chapter house
 * 19) Slype
 * 20) Your 17
 * 21) Refectory
 * 22) Bookstall
 * 23) Undercroft
 * 24) Your 21
 * 25) Cloister
 * 26) Cloister garth
 * 27) Memorial garden

Amandajm (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Revised plan 2
Revised plan - Got to dash, I'll note what the letters mean when I get back. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 1. West door (or west front) 2. South tower & Consistory court 3. North tower 4. Nave 5. Crossing 6. Choir 7. Lady Chapel 8. South porch 9. South ailse 10. South transept 11. South door 12. South choir ailse/St. Erasmus chapel 13. North aisle 14. North transept 15. North Choir aisle 16. St. Werburgh's Chapel 17. Vestry 18. Vestibule 19. Chapter house 20. Slype 21. Monk's Parlour with Song School above it. 22. Refectory 23. Shop 24. Undercroft 25. Abbot's Passage 26. Cloister 27. Cloister garth 28. Reception 29. Memorial garden

a. Font b. RAF Memorial chapel c. Monument to 1st Duke of Westminster d. Cheshire Regiment Memorial e. St Mary Magdalen Chapel (Children's Chapel) f. St. Oswald's Chapel g. St. George's Chapel (Cheshire Regiment) h. St. Nicholas' Chapel i. Choir Stalls j. Bishop's Throne k. High Altar l. St. Werburgh's Shrine m. East Window n. organ o. Bishop Pearson's Tomb p. Cobweb painting q. Night Stairs r. Day Stairs s. Wall Pulpit t. Lavatorium u. Norman entrance to refectory v. Carells w. Scriptorium x. Fountain and Sculpture y. Education centre z. WCs

--Joopercoopers (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

ps. I'm colour blind - will someone let me know if there's sufficient distinction between the modern and late gothic colours. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Colours Not enough distinction. I suggest a greenish shade, or if you can't see that, blue, or mauve for the modern. The other colours are quite clear because there is a tonal as well as a colour difference.
 * Numbering...Um.... why are the cloister and the cloister garth not consecutive? ....OK, I worked that out... however, I think that they should be. A minor point- the number for the west door should be outside the west door rather than inside it. Decide whether we are having "west door" or "west front". I think "west door" is probably OK, because the west front has been rather encroached upon. The combo of that portal and perpendicular window is rather good, however! How much of that window is old and how much is G.G.Scott I wonder.... I would anticipate the traceried is heavily restored, given the nature of the stone, so I wonder if he kept to the design.
 * Features I really like it. Right down to the WCs.
 * Plans Well done! Watchit Mate, or I'll have you do a few more of them! (Bristol, Canterbury, Carlisle, Chichester, Durham, Ely, Exeter.....) Amandajm (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok Amanda, I've tweaked it as you suggested. I've just uploaded the file over the last one, so you'll probably need to refresh your browser's cache to see the changes in the plan above - its' CTRL+F5 for me. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a fantastic plan. Any chance of adding in a scale? Nev1 (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did think about it, but wasn't sure where the 355 feet (108 m) nave should measure from - internal/external? From the crossing to the porch vault? etc. Sadly the old plan from which I did most of the tracing, doesn't have a scale. In the end, I decided to omit it rather than guess and be inaugurate. But if anyone can give me just one precise dimension over a reasonable distance, I'd gladly add it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That plan is just wonderful! :-) Amandajm (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Scale: John Harvey gives the following: Length= 371 ft, width= 206 ft, height (roof)= 75 ft, tower= 127 ft. I would say that the 355 feet you mention above is an internal measurment, and that Harvey's 371 is external, including buttresses. Amandajm (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Proof of concept
Early proof of concept for the image/plan idea here - critique required. Click on x, 4, 6, or j. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Glass Survey
This is a first pass at cataloguing the glass - need to return and re-shoot with a tripod, those that need a bit more steadiness, and only got as far round (anti-clockwise) as the slype - cloisters and refectory, still to do. Rough ambulatory was West window, Nave North Aisle, west to east - South transept East, north to south - South window - South transept west, north to south - West window in choir - South choir aisle, west to east. Chapel of erasmus - North choir aisle, west to east - St. Werburgh's chapel, Lady Chapel, North Transept, Chapter House, Slype. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Supplemental interiors and exteriors
--Joopercoopers (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent work! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Windows
I must say that the tracery of that south transept window is absolutely scintillating.

The collection of 19th and 20th century glass is superb. So many of the best firms are represented, including a fantastic example of Michael Connor. What a beauty! The west window is a great example of mid 20th. And the Westminster windows are excellent. Amandajm (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Map
I feel that the map and co-ords complement each other. Whereas the map is not effective when clicked on (which the co-ords are), it does give a good first impression of the location of the cathedral in the city centre and so adds to the article. Unless someone has an expert knowledge of co-ords, people are not going to look at the co-ords and first sight and think 'Wow, 53°11′31″N - that's in the centre of the city!' I feel that both the co-ords and a small map add to the article and it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia (to be bold) to exclude either. Please can there be a consensus on this before someone deletes the map purely for reasons of their own aesthetic taste? Pjposullivan (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the map added useful information and IMO it was appropriate to have this in the infobox. The article is long enough to absorb a slightly longer infobox.  And it does provide at-a-glance information to the casual visitor to the article of the whereabouts of the cathedral (and I guess there are many of these visitors).  And (although not necessarily a strong argument) the vast majority of infoboxes include maps.  Why not this article? It would at least provide some consistency.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. The map was very useful and provided information at a glance (which is what the infobox is for) instead of having to click through 2 or 3 external websites using the coordinates. The maps are used in the overwhelming majority of articles of this sort and are valuable addition.
 * To give the other side of the argument, the user who keeps deleting the map says it makes the article too long. But the article's TOC is longer than the infobox anyway, so it doesn't affect the text. If it was an issue, I'd suggest adding the "collapse" function to the infobox, but with the TOC being so long, it isn't an issue anyway. --Rushton2010 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Maps
If you are going to insist on shoving those superfluous maps in, could you please LOOK at the effect on the layout of the article and rectify the fact that the illustrations in the lead section of the body have ben pushed down, sometimes into the next section. The first rule of inserting anything large a of a visual nature into any article is to look at it and fix any problems caused. Amandajm (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge Chester Cathedral Choir to Chester Cathedral
The Choir don't seem independently notable, but info would be worth mentioning here. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. There is already a section here, and a section at List of musicians at English cathedrals.   Can you check out if anything ought to be added here? Amandajm (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This would perhaps benefit from a Gramophone search to see if they've any truly notable recordings. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chester Cathedral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120807075014/http://www.chestercathedral.com/chester-cathedral-home-meet-the-clergy.htm to http://www.chestercathedral.com/chester-cathedral-home-meet-the-clergy.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130610033853/http://www.chestercathedral.com/services/monthly-scheme.html to http://www.chestercathedral.com/services/monthly-scheme.html
 * Added tag to http://www.crsbi.ac.uk/search/county/site/ed-ch-checa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Did anything ever come of the FAC idea?
I was checking this as part of ongoing maintenance work on the Cheshire portal and was pleasantly surprised at how good it is; congratulations all! The images are particularly stunning, and I love the coloured plan. Did anything ever come of nominating this for a featured article? I admit I have not reread the text but the work here is obviously considerable. Pinging as the main contributors of whom I'm aware. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's pretty good, although maybe too many photos, and links need to be brought up to date. It got rather stuck after becoming a GA.  Not sure if anyone would be prepared to do it; I'm rather involved elsewhere at present, but it would be a nice addition to the Cheshire FAs. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The quality of GAs is so variable these days, from what I see as no more than a solid start class to better than many FAs. But I doubt I'm up for nominating it a FA. They seem oriented to check all the wrong things. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Richard Langworth (priest) - 16th century Dean of Chester
FYI, our one-sentence Richard Langworth (priest) article has been proposed for deletion (WP:PROD). Right now, the article needs reliable sources to support the subject's notability.

If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the deletion notice for what to do. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Abbey of SS Peter & Paul
Abbey of SS Peter & Paul and Abbey of SS Peter and Paul currently redirect here. (a) The article should mention that former name of the abbey on the site, if that's at all accurate. (b) Those redirects should be replaced by a dab page listing the tons of other present and former abbeys of SS Peter & Paul elsewhere in the world. People don't universally associate the name with Chester. — Llywelyn II   10:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)