Talk:St Andrew's Church, Billingborough

Assesment
As the article stands I am happy to call it a B, but with all these church articles there seems to be a concentration on the building, not the congregation. There is a good case for most of the parish life being described in the parish or village article, but it should not be wholly ignored in these church articles. A good place to start might be Their own web pages.

I'd also like to see some common sections, such as Bells, Organ, and historic lists of incumbents, musicians, and charities administered. Mention of listed buildings is best referred back to the official pages for the NHLE. Not all have been.

This article mentions the start of fundraising for the bell frame but does not persue the story. A mention that the fundraising is still going on might be appropriate (here) but perhaps the work has been done. (as suggested here). --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. You are right to observe that there is a concentration on the building, as these are principally architecture articles on Grade I and Grade II* (only) buildings as WP notable structures suitable for articles. In this case, being churches and of particular areas, they also touch on Religion and County projects – hence the other banners. Grade I buildings in particular, whether churches or not, are of particular importance to a county. The pastoral life of the parish or village, as you say, can be developed in the particular place articles as part of the community, with ‘main article’ links to the church article, and with a brief architectural précis in the place article. And a précis of pastoral life could be referenced in church building articles, as I have done in the lede/s with the mention of the ecclesiastical parish details. The Gilbertine Benefice link is in this article under a sentence in History, the best place I think to future-proof the text.


 * Most good listed building articles are broken into “History” and “Architecture”, with subsections when enough text can justify this, such as “interior” and “Exterior” under “Architecture”. There can be other-stuff sections added, such as bells, glass, monuments and graveyard, but this all depends on how much stuff is available. If there is very little, it’s best to include these in the most appropriate major sections and major sub-sections – a common format in ‘good articles’, which all artices, however short, should emulate. I usually find that three substantial paras at least on a particular aspect would justify its own sub-section. One- or two-sentence sections, as in all articles, are of little use for readers who might click the content box link to find hardly anything there – however I’ve seen lists of bells, monuments and old vicars added, but these, if substantial, are best shown in tables rather than in the now rather deprecated list style which should be converted to text.


 * I agree with you that any reference to the listing of buildings is best linked to the NHLE site, which I have long done, and often changed those to the (admittedly more user-friendly) British Listed Buildings site to NHLE. However, a certain caution is needed with NHLE, and Pastscape, as these often use other sources for their text rather than their own investigators’ reports, particularly Pevsner –  therefore much better to reference there, or wherever.


 * Many thanks for your feedback. Acabashi (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)