User talk:Peter I. Vardy/Archive 4

John Douglas
I think the structure you've adopted for this article works fine. My only real concern is the volume of tables listing his works, as I think it is perhaps yours as well. I think in this case I would be inclined to do what you did with Thomas Brassey, and move the list out. But of course then you'd need to expand the article itself a little, by drawing attention to some of his more famous and/or representative works.

I made a few small changes, chiefly to the formatting of the Architectural styles and practice section, which had the same problem with the edit button getting hidden as the Beston Castle article did. But overall I think it's looking very good. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK notice

 * Congratulations! Great to see Cheshire hitting the main page again. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Italics
Yes its to show they are a redirect. I think this is a great idea as it can be frustrating to click on a link and then find a mini-stub that tells you very little. re notability. I agree .... but they are not Eton and Harrow. I have added your article as an example of good practise to Wikipedia schools project. Well done Victuallers (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC) See here Victuallers (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Buckton Castle
Hi, I was wondering if you could take a look at the Buckton Castle article and tell me what you think. I'd like it to be GA standard, it's a short article but there's only so much that can said about it and I think this is nearly it. I'm coming to you because you got the Halton Castle article to GA. I know these are two  very different articles (Buckton never - as far as we know - had anything like royal visits and wasn't in use during the civil war) but Halton Castle is the only castle GA I've come across. Thanks. Nev1 (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. Just back from a 5 day holiday in London; exhilarating and exhausting.  I've a lot of non-Wiki catching up to do but will certainly try to have a look in the next few days.  Cheers. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have placed some comments on the article's talk page which I hope are helpful. As a matter of personal interest, where are the other two ringworks in the historical counties of Lancashire and Cheshire?  Good luck. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, I've not be able to completely address all the points you raised - for example, a current state section would be woefully small as there really isn't much to say - but what you suggested has improved the article, especially the recommendation about the plan by Ormerod. I'll put it up at WP:GAC and just see what happens. I'm not sure which the other two ringworks are, but I think Chester Castle may be one of them (another article ripe for expansion). Nev1 (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is better now. Good luck with GAC; let's hope it's a reasonable assessor.  Chester Castle is on my "list" to do soon.  Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Chester Castle now expanded. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Crewe Hall
Hi Peter -- the reason I hadn't tagged this one is because I've hardly begun to work on it. I've a huge amount of information that I hope to add as soon as I can get my head around it -- aiming for a DYK, as my Peckforton suggestion looks in danger. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS -- Might I suggest that you link directly to the database subpage, rather than the index page, for quicker reference. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I had not realised you were working on it. On reflection I think I was a bit surprised to see the article because last time I had looked it was not there!  I'm sure you will find a DYK in it (and I don't see why the last suggested hook in Peckforton should not succeed).  Looking at some of "your" articles I think you should be looking towards GA rather than (as well as) DYK.
 * I agree about the links; but when I clicked on the links on the index page, the address did not change, so I was not sure how to get the direct link to the page. Can you advise?  I ask because I have made similar links on some other Cheshire pages and I should like to correct them. Best wishes (and good to see you doing so much on Cheshire themes again). Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Discovered how to do it! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to find such a well-known house as Crewe Hall wasn't already up. I haven't come up with a natty hook for DYK yet but I think there has to be something in there relating to the Barry reconstruction. I was hoping to get Acton to GA but have stalled a bit over the precise requirements listed by the UK geography project, which are in places rather hard to interpret for a village of 300 inhabitants! Also, Dorfold Hall should open in April, so I might be able to get some photos -- if the weather ever clears up. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK - Chester Castle

 * Congratulations! The portal is certainly not going to be short of DYKs next update. You seem to have a knack of getting the pictured slot, which keeps on eluding me! Espresso Addict (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Actually a lot of getting the "pictured slot" stems from your advice to me to go to Geograph for images.  It's good (and fun) to get Cheshire-related articles on the main page (even though only for a few hours) – the only reason I do it!.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the main page DYK generates more traffic in the 6–8 hours than the portal does in a month, so it's definitely worth slogging away at them! Just featuring on the suggestions page gets a few seasoned editors looking the page over, as well, which often results in useful edits. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: John Douglas & a suggestion on the portal
I went through all the B-class biography articles tagged by the project last night, and I think this is the most suitable remaining, so I'd be keen to feature it, either as it is, or after the split you mention.

I'd agree with splitting the list out, particularly if you plan on developing it, and summarising his key works in prose form in more detail, with illustrations, in the biography. I think the biography part might need some expansion before it would have a reasonable chance at Good Article, though it depends so much on the reviewer.

I've not had much contact with the featured list group. I toyed with the idea of attempting with Listed buildings in Nantwich, Cheshire, but got sidetracked by attempting to photograph them all. (To be honest, I find it a touch annoying that things like Buffy episode guides are getting to 'featured' status by this route.) The major problem with the John Douglas list would seem to be that you've excluded various things, per the note at the top of the list. I think the featured list criteria would tend to require a complete list or some very well-defined set of exclusions. The Manchester project people could be helpful, as I think they've had several successes there, and the Architecture project seems quite active too.

As an aside, I've been wondering about suggesting that the portal ditches doing a monthly Featured Biography, as we're currently very limited in high-quality articles with a free picture that have a strong link to Cheshire, in favour of doing Featured Place (city, town, village, CP &c), Featured Article (buildings, structures, geographical features &c) & Featured Picture. The article slot could, of course, include biographies if good ones turn up. I believe one of the geography portals that is featured or at featured review uses this structure, though I can't find the one I was looking at now. What do you think? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Early days. By all means use the Douglas article as it is on the Portal.  It may be time (months) before the article is ready for GA and the list for featured consideration.  I will take into consideration all you say.  Let's face it; Wikipedia IS serious – but maybe it shouldn't be taken TOO seriously, if you see what I mean (why lose sleep?...).
 * Regarding what to put on the Portal, let's use what seems appropriate. If there are not enough biographies, let's use what is available (and good). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the Douglas hook has just been selected. (I'd have selected it myself, but I'm trying to avoid using Cheshire project hooks, as it seems a mild conflict of interest.) Espresso Addict (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the news. I had assumed that, as it had become "expired", that was the end of it.  So, successful after all!  Thanks for your input.  The more we have of Cheshire DYKs, the better. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A whole set often get expired just because there's a backlog, as there is today. They remain viable until they're removed from the page totally; it's not unheard of for items as much as 3 days expired to be selected. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact I note the heading's just been chanaged from "Expired" to "Expiring" to reflect this. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * So it made it after all! It must have appeared overnight: I missed it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oakmere Hall

 * And to you! I think this month might already be a record for the Cheshire WP. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * You're right, it is Shropshire! I tend to forget that we live so near to the border. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:20, 19 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've copied this discussion on to Talk:Chester Cathedral and suggest we continue it there; more in the public eye! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Chemical industry
"Chemical industry of the USSR" building was built in 1967 in the excibition centre in Moscow. Architect B.S. Vilensky. Total excibition area is 5000 sq meters. In this image you can see the "Chemical industry of the USSR" inscription in front of the building. The excibition featured chemical machines and equipment, mockups, models etc.--Dojarca (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Macclesfield Forest DYK
Thanks, Peter. I think it was PFHLai who reordered the pictures so that they didn't make sense. I hadn't realised Forest Chapel had an article already -- I was in a bit of a hurry on Thursday and looked in the categories under St Stephen's & Macclesfield Forest but didn't think to look under F! (I've made a redirect for St Stephen's Church, Macclesfield Forest now, in case anyone else looks for it there.) Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Peter. Two in one update is my record, I think! Espresso Addict (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Highfields, Buerton in close studding
I've removed the reference to this property in the close studding article. The list was intended as a selective list of buildings known either as good examples of close studding or as unusual examples of the form. I should probably edit the list to indicate this. Also, I think it would be useful to avoid more Cheshire bias than has already been introduced by using the McKenna book on timbered buildings of Cheshire as a major source; the Cheshire examples listed are all pointed out by McKenna as a good example of close studding. I'm sure, for example, that there are other European examples, but I don't have any sources. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Chester Cathedral
Hi. I didn't remove the en dashes, I just substituted the visual of them (–) rather than using their HTML code (–). They are still different/larger from the normal dashes (-); they're just a bit neater in the source code for the article. If you look below the edit summary box while editing the page, there's a line that starts with "Insert:"; the first dash after that is the en-dash, and the second is the em-dash. Click on them to insert them in the edit box, wherever your cursor is. BTW, you'll be seeing more from me on the article in the (hopefully near) future, as I add info from the Home book to it... Mike Peel (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! It sailed through GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cheshire Portal, etc
Thanks for the reminder on the Crown Hotel; I've started a short page under that title (which seems preferred by everyone except the IoE), though references are rather sparse. I have a few books out of the library at the moment on Cheshire country houses, so if I can add anything significant to your new articles I will certainly have a go.

I'm hoping eventually to submit Listed buildings in Nantwich, Cheshire for featured list assessment, but would like to get as many photos as possible first. (I have another batch of pictures I haven't got around to sorting yet.) I've been putting off an attempt because I'd have to change the references format to use the citeweb template, which will take quite a bit of faffing. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Victorian engineers
We've briefly discussed this subject before, with Thomas Brassey, but I'm becoming more and more astonished at how poor wikipedia's coverage of important 19th-century engineers is. I was idly thinking about starting an article on the history of Manchester's water supply, so I went off to the library. I discovered that it was designed by John Frederick Bateman, who also designed and built the water supply systems for a very large part of the UK - including Chester as it happens. I looked Bateman up in wikipedia, only to find an article about a minor baseball player!

I've written a stub on him now, hopefully enough to keep the deletion police away from it anyway. But it still astonishes me that wikipedia has an article for every single episode of The Simpsons, yet hardly anything on these 19th-century engineering megastars. Ah well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, especially with your comments on The Simpsons. To my "credit" I did some time ago write stubs on William Baker, John Webster and Donald Campbell, and something slightly longer on James Beatty, but these could all do with more input.  In passing I note that the article on Daniel Adamson of Manchester Ship Canal fame is entirely unreferenced (and the canal article is very poorly referenced).


 * My parallel moan is about 19th century architects. In writing articles on Cheshire churches and Grade I listed buildings, few of the important architects had articles about them.  I've tried to remedy this a bit with new articles on James Harrison, Edmund Sharpe, Thomas Lockwood and Edmund Kirby, and some work on John Douglas, Thomas Harrison and Anthony Salvin.  I guess it's up to people like you and me and Espresso Addict to try to fill these gaps.  Keep up the good work.  I'm thinking of submitting Chester Castle as a GAC.  What do you think?  Best wishes, Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Chester Castle looks good, well worth a shot at GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Grade I listed buildings in Cheshire
Kudos on the list, it's looking excellent. I've kept meaning to get back to Dorfold Hall when it's open and I can take a picture from closer (that one's from the road!), but Mondays are my least plausible day for outings. It might have to wait till a bank holiday.

Re Chester Castle, I'm not sure I understand the good article review criteria well enough to advise -- Malleus undoubtedly has a much better handle on the standards. It's well written and referenced, but I think there is probably rather more to be said on the subject. I don't have any specific references on Chester or castles, unfortunately, but there is a little material in those volumes of A History of Cheshire that I have currently have on loan from the library. I can try to abstract and add, if that would be helpful?

By the way, I was wondering about going for it with Crewe Hall after a bit of minor polishing, if you had any thoughts on that one? Espresso Addict (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Chester Castle is a bit thin on the history section but I've added all the info I can find in my sources. If you add more I would be delighted.  Re Crewe Hall, I think that is excellent and should easily get a GA rating.  The assessors usually come up with a few quibbles (although amazingly they did not with Chester Cathedral).  One quibble they may make is about a mixture of metric and imperial measurements (miles, hectares and acres); the best tactic would be to give all units in both imperial and metric.  As a matter of interest, was the Paris Exhibition of 1878 the same as Exposition Universelle (1878)? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Re Chester Castle, I'll see what I can do when I get a moment. Thanks for the note about metric and imperial units, I'm of the generation that gets terminally confused between them (metric at school, imperial at home). Conversion would seem the way to go there, although I never know which I want to put first! Espresso Addict (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Something else that'll likely get picked up at Crewe Hall's GA is the use of pull-out quotes.
 * They're not meant to be used in the body of an article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, as I recall it was you who confused me on that one, by adding them to Churche's Mansion during the GA review ;) What is the preferred display quote? Does one just use blockquote? Espresso Addict (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I did, didn't I. Probably ought to go back and fix that. :-( The relevant style guide is here; obviously it's been changed since we did the Churche's Mansion review, *cough*, *splutter* :-). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just knew they were too pretty to conform to MoS :) Espresso Addict (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Churches in Cheshire
Hi Ive just seen the Churches in Cheshire navbox you have created Thankyou it is really usefull when reading the church related articles (i started to create one but made some errorsUser:ARBAY/Navbox) I was wondering if  they should be categorised by Church position within a bourogh or Parish  as this would make for easy reading .Also Just to inform you as you are a major cotributer to Churches in Cheshire articles   I am working to try to write an article for the Churches in Sandbach  ARBAY (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I did not create the navbox &mdash; I just added to the box you had created.  It's made it rather large and I am not sure how we should proceed from here.  I have therefore raised a query on the Cheshire project talk page here and look forward to comments from yourself and other members. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Chester Weir
As a senior manager with one of the principal participants in the Dee Regulation System with responsibility for ensuring that the abstractions were supported and that water quality remained excellent, I can give you personal assurances that my recent edits were indeed fact. However, this is Wikipedia and my say so is quite rightly not enough so it may take me some time to find public domain documents that demonstrate unequivocally that this is so. In the meantime, I would much appreciate it if you could find supporting evidence for a number of other assertions (which I am happy to believe are correct) such as:
 * 1) That the weir is composed of sandstone - logical in that location, but do we know this?
 * 2) That the mills were all demolished in the 20th Century and not earlier.
 * 3) The there was a hydroelectric plant operated by the City Council between the wars.
 * 4) The generation plant required repairs being made to the weir.

For the record I shan't be marking all of these facts as requiring verification.

A final special request would be if you know who currently owns the weir - this knowledge evaded me despite several years of enquiry. It is neither the City nor the County council, it is not the Environment Agency, it is not any of the water companies (Although Chester Water Company when they were in existence were always rather coy on the subject), nor is it apparently the Duke of Westminster. Velela (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contribution, which is appreciated. I have no doubt that the facts contained are accurate.  But the problem with Wikipedia is that, as an article is developed, unreferenced statements tend to be deleted; or the whole section has to be re-written with inline citations incorporated.  So if you can find references for your contribution at this stage, that would be great.


 * The evidence for all the statements to which you refer is in the citation at the end of each paragraph, namely The English Heritage entry in Images of Britain here. All the statements in the paragraph are taken from this source; it would not be sensible to add the same citation at the end of each sentence; the citation applies to everything in the paragraph.  The Images of Britain website is reckoned to be reasonably reliable and it includes its own references at the end of the description.


 * In respect of your question about ownership I have placed a query on the Talk Page of WikiProject Cheshire here to see if any member of the project can help. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

List of places in Derbyshire
Hello, why did you wipe out my photos??? Renata (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I panicked. Your Edmund Sharpe page displays perfectly on IE, and it's an impressive page! Still room for one or two images :-)...Regards,Renata (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Edmund Sharpe and Safari
Hi Peter

Looks fine to me- all edit tags in correct place. I see the ones on the Derbyshire page have now crept up halfway! Ning-ning (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On the Cheshire page the edit links are in the right places, but the map at the top is interacting with the photo of Aldington (was going to write superimposed, but it's not exactly). I see it's spreading- now List of Places in Leicestershire has problems. Ning-ning (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh well- I suppose by the time she gets to Cornwall someone more mardy than us will tell her to knock it off!Ning-ning (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Leicestershire images and left comment on the talk page. Ning-ning (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A final note- I had a look at Grade 1 Listed Buildings in Cheshire, and noticed that the illustrations showed a lot of listing buildings- listing backwards due to the photographer being forced to point the camera upwards. This is quite easy to fix in an image editor but unfortunately the palaver of downloading, uploading etc. once the image is in Wikipedia is a bit tedious. I did it for user:Victuallers -time to fix picture ten seconds, time to sort out the licence, the source etc. half-an-hour. if it's any use to you or others I could write out some brief instructions. Ning-ning (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'd welcome instructions; although when I have time to get round to it is another matter! It would be helpful to have the info available.  Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you Dr Vardy for moving The page name I put in the wrong place on WP cheshire I'll remember for next time.

Norton Priory
I've had a look through Norton Priory, as you asked. Another nice piece of work; I doubt you'll have too much trouble getting it through GA, I've been through and made some copyedits, so it would be probably be as well to just check that I haven't completely misunderstood those little bits that I rewrote. The only suggestion for improvement I have is that the Prior and abbey section is probably a bit on the long side. The last section, for instance could perhaps be separated out into a new Decline subsection? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that looks much better now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

List of civil parishes in Derbyshire
Just a suggestion. It has images ... but (I think) no edit problems .... Victuallers (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've copied the parishes page at User:Ning-ning/sub-ning if you want to experiment with editing it. It has one photo at the moment. Ning-ning (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Chester Cathedral
I notice you've done a lot of tweaking. What's the plan? Do you think that it is GA material? Amandajm (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article achieved GA status in April 2008 since which there has been a lot of editing. This has left some loose ends which might lead to problems when GA status is reviewed.  I am trying to tidy up.  Do you have a problem with that? If I make any mistakes I am sure you or another editor will deal with them. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor Question
Hi Peter. I note that you do not appear to have admin rights, which seems somewhat suprising given your tenure and experience. Are you not interested in the extra tools at all? Pedro : Chat  20:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you; I am honoured. But being retired now and enjoying the quiet life, I am very happy to write articles and do a bit of editing, and don't want the hassle that some admins seem to suffer.  But you have cheered me up no end.  Cheers and best wishes to you. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not all hassle :) If you just use the tool set for your own ends (e.g. moving over redirects and killing of your own sandbox entries) there's no real grief. After all, the tools don't rust and there's plenty to hand out! But if you're not that interested then that's fine as well. It trully is no big deal, however I do believe long established editors like yourself may find a need for them and should really just get them. If you have a rethink please "hit me up" for a nomination at WP:RFA. Pedro : Chat  20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll bear it in mind. But at the moment I'm happy...... (and chuffed by the suggestion). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. Happy editing! Pedro : Chat  20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter, if you don't want the tools, just accept them and then give them to me. I promise you I'd take very good care of them. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice thought! I know you would. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter > Piers > Pierre > Pedro ... such a common name .... Pedro : Chat  20:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's any help, Peter, I was dropping by to ask you this same question. I very much hope you let us know if you decide that you'd like the extra buttons. :) Happy editing! Glass  Cobra  16:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's extremely kind of you. But I'm VERY happy to be a simple editor (and there's an awful lot to do down here) and I really don't want the excitement that some admins have seemed to generate (or have had generated to them - if you see what I mean)!!! I'm retired, I'm enjoying life, why should I want more..........? Still, your comments are much appreciated - really (actually I'm quite chuffed!).  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Vale Royal Abbey
Hi, Dr Vardy. I've added the inline citations for Vale Royal Abbey and done a bit of a clean-up on the article. However, it still needs a lot of work, particularly on the post-Dissolution history of the site, which is something that I have very little information on save for the immediate transactions at the fall of the abbey - it needs a Cheshire specialist to give it a good look over and fill out. BTW, I know it's a little out of your favoured field being Hampshire not Cheshire, but I wonder if you'd be willing to have a quick look at the article on Netley Abbey? I've seen the excellent work you've done on the articles for several mediaeval sites and, as I hope to get Netley up to GA status, an informed, dispassionate eye would be very useful. Best wishes Soph (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to hear from you again. Thanks for the citations you've added to Vale Royal Abbey (maybe too many (!); you don't need one for every sentence - if the same reference does for successive sentences, I suggest you just use the last one, if you see what I mean).  I've only had time for a glance at Netley Abbey and it looks very promising.  At the moment I am between a holiday away and a week of grandparent duties, so I will have a more detailed look after that.  First impressions are as follows.  You need a longer lead, probably three paras for an article of this length.  The lead should be a summary of the whole article; enough for someone who comes across it to get a good idea of the contents, and then to read more if they want.  For the references I suggest you use  rather than ; it seems to be the preferred option and looks better.  Also if you are using a book for a number of references, it is a good idea to put the book into a "Bibliography" section and in the notes section just put the page numbers (see Norton Priory for the way it works).  I see that you have also asked Malleus Fatuorum; he is a good source for advice (I use him a lot).  Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Doctor Vardy! Thanks for taking a look at Netley Abbey, I'm very grateful to you for running your experienced eye over it, and your word that it is promising gives me hope that I will eventually get it up to standard. re cites: I screwed up, I did them as as I was taught at university (a long time ago now), citing everything that could be disputed as close as possible to the statement in question, with the result that I broke the wiki style book and I've certainly over cited, both on Netley Abbey and other monasteries I've written about. I'll take your advice, reduce the cites and use the format used in Norton Priory, painful as it may be as I've just typed all those multiple references in, but you are right it does look better, if rather American. re: the lead I'm not sure that it needs three paras but I have extended it for a better summary and sell. re: Malleus, he has been fantastic, I wrote to him out of the blue because his name kept coming up on the histories of good articles about similar subjects that I was using as guides and without a word he sorted my layout problems on Netley and has given me so much good advice. Have an excellent holiday with the grandparents, Sophia Soph (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Church bells
I don't know if you're aware of Dove's Guide for Church Bell Ringers? It's gnerally regarded by ringers as the best available central source for information on church bells (hung for English style change ringing). There's currently a major effort under way to turn into into a true national bell register, capturing full detils of church bells, weight, date, founder etc., similar to the organ specs in NPOR which I see you are already making use of. David Underdown (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't aware of this very useful source. I have added the online link to my bookmarks and will use it for future edits to church articles.  Thanks for drawing my attention to it and to your useful edits to St Mary's Church, Nether Alderley. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Mary's Church, Nether Alderley
The article St Mary's Church, Nether Alderley you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:St Mary's Church, Nether Alderley for things needed to be addressed. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I reviewed the article. It is generally in good shape, and I found only minor concerns. These are iterated in the review on the talk page. Again, good job. Feel free to contact me with any queries. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again, sorry about the delayed response. The article is definitely progressing in the right direction. I'll come back tommorow and attempt at being a bit more specific, Kindest, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Greetings Peter. I re-read St Mary's church today. The copy editing was very well done, thus I passed the article. Regarding the use of the word "quiet", well, I thought about that for a bit. I believe that, in the context of the piece, that the word is fine. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Norton Priory
The article Norton Priory you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Norton Priory for things needed to be addressed. Million_Moments (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Westminster Abbey
Hi Peter, please forgive the intrusion. I have been browsing your many excellent edits to so many churches. Bravo. I wonder have you ever had a look at Westminster Abbey? Obviuously it has received a lot of attention, but it seems that it does not have and never has had any bells. Is this correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you. Yes, Westminster Abbey does have bells (of course).  Recently another editor led me to Dove's Guide for Church Bell Ringers which seems to have details of all the bells currently in action.  The relevent link for the abbey is here.  The abbey's website has more about the history of the bells here.  Does this answer your query? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, many thanks. But did you think that the bells might be worthy of mention in the Westminster Abbey article? Also, while you're here! - you might want to take a look at the church of St.Thomas at Redwick, Newport which currently has "...rhe fourth and fifth are pre-reformation bells from the Bristol foundry, dated circa 1350-1380 making them some of the oldest church bells working anywhere in the country." I wonder, does this claim stand up to expert scrutiny? Many thanks for your kind help. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Westminster bells are not on my "to do" list at present. I have confirmed the dates of the Redwick bells at the Dove site but cannot confirm that they are some of the oldest.  Unfortunately the statement is not referenced by inline citations, so there is a problem in verifying it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. It might be useful if I added the Dove site as a citation for the age of the Redwick bells, if not for their comparative age. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal
Hi there. I noticed some of your good work on related waterways, and just wondered if, in the path of any research you're doing, you find anything about the above canal, to please feel free to insert. I'm getting the article ready for FAC. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I only have stuff on Cheshire canals, and then mainly on the ones around Runcorn. The article's looking pretty good and frighteningly comprehensive.  Good luck with FAC. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you never know though what you may come across :) I'm interested in improving all the articles around the NW, its such an important area and so many articles are in relatively poor condition.  I'm glad you started the M&I navigation as that ties into a lot of the articles I've been working on.  Thanks for the compliment, its good to get feedback. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Netley Abbey again
Hi Dr Vardy! Just thought I'd let you know that I have now submitted the article on Netley Abbey for good article review. We'll see how it does, but I could never have got even close without the help you and Malleus have given. Cheers. Soph (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great; I wish you the best of luck. It very much depends on which assessor picks it up.  Some of them can give you a hard time.  But in the end, it's usually a good learning process.  Did you  realise that Norton Priory recently gained the GA accolade?  By the way, it's Peter, not all that Dr stuff!  I'll keep my eye on your progress. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK!
Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 08:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK ~ Tatton Hall
Thanks, Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  16:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)