Talk:Westwood Moravian Church

Jackson's Tune
Thanks for including Jackson's Tune to "while Shepherds watched their flocks by night". I was very pleased. It's wonderful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.217.93 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

B class?
The article appears to meet the six B class criteria. Should it be uprated? -Arb. (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been invited to comment on the article, which I consider to be an impressive contribution by an editor new to Wikipedia. My comments are intended to be positive and helpful with the intention of taking the article forward.


 * I was initially confused as to whether the article is about a church in the sense of a church as a building or a church as a congregation; these two aspects seem to be muddled. I think a degree of reorganisation is needed to make this clear.  It seems that we are talking about a church building which is now redundant, which used to serve a congregation which has now moved elsewhere - if I am right, this needs to be addressed.  It should be made clear in the lead.  The body of the article is entitled "History" - and it contains just about everything.  Splitting into more sections, including History and Architecture, would help.  The material from Hartwell et al should be moved from the lead, where it sits uncomfortably, into an Architecture section - even better if there were a description rather than just a copy of what is in the book.  There are some comments which seem to me "chatty" rather than encyclopaedic eg "The Christmas Eve social, from which a party of young people would go carol singing around Chadderton until about four o’ clock in the morning, became a popular event." and some material is unreferenced eg "The School Hall was used as an Employment Exchange from 1922 to 1957."  In addition, if we are moving towards GA, paragraphs need to be lengthened/combined.  And I understand (from comments on my own work) that lists of ministers/priests/vicars etc are not appropriate (not notable).


 * In my opinion, not yet ready for B-class, but the article carries much promise. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE FROM WESTWOOD_LAD: Hello, Peter - many thanks for these comments. I can't claim to be sole author of the article as it now stands and in any event I started with a template provided by Arbus Driver. However, I agree with your suggestions. There is some confusion from an external perspective between buildings and the life of the congregation though to someone who was a member at Westwood the distinction is perhaps not so clear-cut. The material on the congregation is in my view worthwhile from a social historical point of view. I can supply a reference for the Employment Exchange but, fair cop, the carol singing is my own nostalgia! On the references, they are mostly to Packer (1965) but this work is not widely available. I have checked the catalogue of the Cambridge University Library (at which I have borrowing rights) but the Library does not list it. This suggests that it was not placed in any of the deposit libraries on publication. I can rectify this by placing a copy in Cambridge but I don't have enough to supply Oxford and the British Library as well. There may be a copy in the Oldham Local Interest Centre - if that's what it's still called - and Moravian Church House archives in London, but I haven't checked.Westwood lad (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good luck with the development of the article! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Peter. Major changes now made. The lines of text looks a bit gappy to me (because of the frequency of references, presumably). I've left in the list of Ministers pro tem as this was part of the template supplied by Arbus Driver and I'd be interested in his opinion. I see the point about Ministers not being individually notable but to a Moravian reading the page some of the names would be familiar. Westwood lad (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My guess would be that Peter's experience relates to articles that are exclusively about buildings. In the case of Westwood we have also a "Congregation history" section in which the list seems to sit very comfortably. With regard to notability, my understanding is that it has to be shown for the primary subject of an article, not for every nugget of information within it. If this is incorrect Peter can no doubt point us to the relevant policy/guide/discussion. -Arb. (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. The church articles in which I have been involved have been mainly about their history and architecture, although when there is something interesting/notable about the congregation, this has been included.  Most congregations are not as interesting as Westwood!


 * I should prefer to see more citations - certainly one at the end of each paragraph. This is not actually a requirement in WP:CITE, although it is IMO good practice.  When future editors come to the article, they really need to know whence the information came (see WP:VERIFY).  My personal rule is "if you can't give a citation, don't include it".  Which leads to personal memories or experiences (eg the carol singing) - they should really not be included (see WP:NOR).


 * I am not sure about any policy concerning the inclusion of lists of ministers so I have raised a query with the appropriate WikiProject - see here. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to take out personal memories. However, what is Wikipedia's position on drawing from sources such as oral histories or volumes of personal reminiscence? I'm not a professional historian, but I'm sure these would be treated as sources in historical scholarship - to be critically evaluated, undoubtedly, but nevertheless used. And while the compiling of memoirs could be classed as primary research I'm not sure this is true of works of scholarship that draw from them.


 * The vast majority of assertions elsewhere in the article are referenced. However, as I've commented before, this is a potential cul-de-sac if another editor or reader can't actually get hold of a copy of the source. Some post-1965 information derives from my knowledge rather than Ivor Packer's booklet but could be referenced and I'll prepare those over the next few days. Grateful for all advice given so far. Westwood lad (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It took me a while to come to terms with the "at least one reference for every paragraph" approach; there are plenty of articles that simply have a line under the heading "References" saying something like "The primary reference for this article is..." and leaving it at that with no inline references at all. However the reality is that any paragraph without a reference can legitimately be tagged with a  template so it's quickest in the long run to give them a reference from the start while the material is to hand and fresh in the mind. The system is wide open to abuse though; if a less than totally scrupulous author were to overlook the fact that some material is not from a stated reference the chances of any one finding out must be very slim. -Arb. (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Firwood Church?
I drove past the building today and noticed it had banners on it, say "Firwood Church". Does anybody know why? --Jza84 | Talk  19:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe it's now stripped of its Moravian furniture and is being used as a spiritualist church but this is by word of mouth from someone who knows someone else who saw the door open and went in to have a look. Westwood lad (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.firwoodchurch.com/
 * A section on post Moravian use would be a good addition. I seem to recall being told that it was sold to an Asian community group initially but have no details. -Arb. (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It was sold to an individual whose primary interest was in the Manse. Westwood lad (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Subheadings
Is there a reason that these are bold text and not level 3 headings ( ===Blah=== )? -Arb. (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, it's a requirement by WP:MOSHEAD though! :S --Jza84 | Talk  23:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You'll have to excuse me; I'm learning as I go along ... Westwood lad (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Post Moravian use
If we are to include post Moravian uses of the building we need to restructure some of the headings. How about:
 * 2 Occupation and use
 * 2.1 The Moravian congregation
 * 2.1.1 Church and Sunday School
 * 2.1.2 Education and employment
 * 2.1.3 Social activities
 * 2.1.4 Provincial Synod
 * 2.1.5 Ministry
 * 2.1.6 Closure
 * 2.1.7 Ministers
 * 2.2 Asian community organisation (have initiated enquiries)
 * 2.3 Firwood Church (ditto)

Alternatively, if it turns out that there is not much to say about the post Moravian users then we could use "2.2 Post Moravian use" with a bullet or paragraph for each.

-Arb. (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Arb, this is fine by me. Your enquiries about the use of buildings should also cover the Sunday School, which was at least let for various commercial activities - I can't recall whether it was sold with the Church and Manse or earlier. Westwood lad (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Photo in Law (1999)
This really is a good photo of the area and I've messaged Oldham Council for permission to reproduce it. It includes houses in Palace Street which I know were built in 1914 and Westwood Mill which was demolished in the mid 1930s. The church is not visible but the whole of the post 1906 Sunday School is, both the Hall and the three-storey extension at the back which dates from the 1890s. In addition to the Westwood and Anchor Mills, it is also possible to see Platt Bros on Middleton Road and Benny Lees's weaving sheds on Ashley Street plus other mills Westwood lad (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)