Template:Did you know nominations/Church of Saint Oswald, King and Martyr, Oswaldkirk

Church of Saint Oswald, King and Martyr, Osaldkirk

 * ... that St. Oswald's church, Oswaldkirk (pictured), hosted the first sermon of the future Archbishop of Canterbury and chaplain to Charles II, John Tillotson?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ali al-Ghanmi

.
 * Comment: 3371/640=~5.26

Created/expanded by Gilderien (talk). Self nom at 20:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Symbol question.svg Despite the comment, the article has not been given a 5x expansion. The first day it was created (by the current expander), on November 13, 2011, the article had 773 characters, and this increased to 822 the next day before it was edited two days later by another author, who brought it down to 774. DYKcheck says that the current size of 3301 is not a 5x expansion, and I agree: it requires 4110 with 822 as the previous peak. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I'll add some more this evening.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 13:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Microsoft word gives current count (ex. headings etc.) as 3358 and the count after User:Deor edited it as 775. Is there a possibility DYK check might be slightly inaccurate? Anyway, I'll look over my sources again and add some more anyway.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 775 vs. 774 for Deor seems great to me; 3358 vs. 3301 is also close and likely differs in what's counted, in which case I'd trust DYKcheck over Word, since the former knows what's eligible and what isn't. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

4289 ✅ -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 13:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I had to delete some repeated text, but DYKcheck remained happy even though the total is slightly below 4110 now, so I'll go with its judgment. The hook facts are given inline citations and are confirmed in the sources. The new addition to the lede is problematic for two reasons: "several metres" means maybe 15 feet, or a distance that I could cover in five or six steps. Give an actual distance, or just say "near the southern boundary" if the source—and this needs a source, since Oswaldkirk is not mentioned in the park's article—does not go into specifics. Likewise, the "Modern Use" paragraph is unsourced; it may need more than one reference given the variety of events cited. Please give an "as of" date for the vicar; "current" can get stale quickly, but "as of 2012" (or whatever) gives the reader an idea of how recent the information is. Since a major source (2 refs, 9 cites), Oswaldkirk, a living village, is online, please have the ref links go to the site subpage that the referenced material is on rather than the home page; I suspect that page is here for much (all?) of it, but you'll know for sure. I like the article; it's interesting to have a glimpse into the history of the church and also how it's used today. I'll try to finish the review later today, so you know whether anything else needs revising. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Does google maps, marking the boundary and the church, count as a source? And okay, there is an online ref for modern usage, I had forgotten to add it; for the Oswaldkirk, A living village, book, I was actually using a hard copy that I acquired when I decided to concentrate on this area, which is not exactly the same as the online version, but I'll link to it anyway. Thanks...-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 18:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Google maps. Um. That I'm not sure about. Physical maps, I'm told, are valid secondary sources, but I'm not sure about Google. I was able to find the village web page which says that the village is partly in the park. The "Village Information Booklet" PDF linked to from that page says on pages 5 and 6 that the park includes the north half of the village but not the south; the park's page on the village is disappointingly uninformative. Incidentally, the living village book's website update page mentions that John Dee was once a rector of the church. That might be worth a sentence or two. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's okay. I have all the relevant OS maps, but they are not available online, so.... the church is south of the road, but that falls suspiciously close to WP:SYNTH to me. And okay, I'll slot it in in about ten minutes, really need to go do something right now.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 18:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, does it matter that the image I chose is not the same as the one in the article, I thought about changing it, because I really like this image.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 18:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does matter that the image is not in the article. If you want to use it with the DYK hook, you need to add it to the article. (I hadn't checked the image yet.) Since it's from Wikimedia Commons, there won't be any issue about copyright. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do, and yes, I've added it to the article.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 19:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And added the Rector. Could you check my wording, I'm concerned that I might be paraphrasing too closely, but I can't really think of any other way to say it.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 19:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I've added some material to give the paragraph more context, and dragged in an outside ref on Dee for the slight expansion on the Elizabeth front. I've also made a few other changes along the lines of what I asked for above. Paraphrasing checks done using Duplication Detector and come up clean; the image is from Wikimedia Commons and therefore allowed on DYK. The only thing that hasn't yet been handled is the final sentence in the intro, discussed above, and the final two sentences of the first Modern usage paragraph, which have to have come from somewhere and need to be footnoted accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I don't have access to my OS maps at the moment, but I'll add a Google maps source, and add the OS maps source later. Also, I'll have a look for the source where I got the services; it's probably an offline source, but if I can get an online one I'll add that too. Thanks.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 08:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with the Google maps source is that it shows the church building (in gray) clearly inside the park, which contradicts the article. The attached PDF may not be the one you meant, since it just shows the coastal sections of the park, and not Oswaldkirk at all. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, its not, I'll remove it. The boundary marked on the Google maps is incorrect, I put it there to show the location of the church relative to the road; the official OS map (citation pending) shows the boundary as the road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilderien (talk • contribs) 16:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My thought it that Google maps cannot be used for this, not only because it has the border wrong, but because it gives the Church's address as the park. If the source needs to be offline, so be it. Or you could just remove the sentence in question, or change it to "near the boundary" or (if you have a source for it; they mention it in the village guide that's available on the village website, but the guide's pretty informal and may not be considered WP:RS) "near the boundary ... which runs through the village of Oswaldkirk." BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll just remove it.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 19:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Since I hadn't initially noted it as an issue, it seems churlish to withhold approval for those two modern usage services sentences; still, please do add the ref as soon as possible. It's a nice little article. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)