Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edmund Sharpe/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 01:53, 25 May 2012.

Edmund Sharpe

 * Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is the biography of an under-recognised 19th-century polymath who IMO deserves to be better known. The main source for the article is a self-published work currently available only as a CD. The credentials of the author and the reasons for its non-publication elsewhere are explained on the article's talk page. The article has been peer-reviewed and copyedited, and throughout the process I have been working closely with the author of the main source. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Support (by Carcharoth (talk) - initial comments at 13:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC), updated to support at 00:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC) following discussion below) Article looks very good. Version reviewed is here. A few comments. May say more later.
 * I've read through both the 2004 ODNB (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) article (by F. M. O'Donoghue, rev. Geoffrey K. Brandwood) and the 1897 DNB (Dictionary of National Biography) article by F. M. O'Donoghue. The publication date of the latter can be confirmed by accessing the ODNB's DNB archive (link in the menu sidebar on the ODNB entry, I incorrectly said 1885 in my edit summary). I also added a template in the external links that provides access to the wikisource copy of that DNB entry. That is a bit clunky, so feel free to remove that if you don't want that there. What I do think is needed is some way of explicitly noting that Sharpe was well-known enough to be given an entry in the 19th-century work, the DNB. Not everyone realises when looking at the sources that the 2004 ODNB entry is an update of the earlier 1897 entry, and that F. M. O'Donoghue is Freeman Marius O'Donoghue, Assistant Keeper in the Department of Prints and Drawings at the British Museum (this is detailed here). Is there a way to make clear that earlier (initial?) scholarship on Sharpe was published in 1897, not starting in 2004 as the current bibliographic list implies? This might be best done by explaining what 'F. M. O'Donoghue, rev. Geoffrey K. Brandwood' means (i.e. make clear that F. M. O'Donoghue is a 19th-century author and Geoffrey K. Brandwood is a 21st-century author).
 * I've added the date (1897) to the ref, plus a sentence to the Appraisal section about the 1897 article plus its author. I have made a reference to Wikisource, and assume this is OK. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The ODNB entry includes in its sources 'private information (2004) [John M. Hughes]', which accounts for the article statement (in the bibliography) 'is credited as a source for the article on Sharpe in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'. A minor quibble: the note on the Hughes source says 'Brandwood, Geoff', when Brandwood is elsewhere named as Geoffrey K. Brandwood. Even if Brandwood is named slightly differently by the two different publications (ODNB and the English Heritage publication), I think the naming should be consistent in the article.
 * Standardised. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've read the talk page note on the Hughes source, and I have no problems with that being used as a source. There may be an option in the citation templates to actually put 'format=CD' or 'format=digital', but that is quibbling as the note makes that all clear. What I would suggest, when the English Heritage book is published, is to include that as a source here, as that will help establish Hughes' credentials as a published (in print) author on this topic (I'm sure you intended doing this anyway, but thought it worth mentioning).
 * That I certainly intend to do.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead : "setting himself up" - the phrasing is slightly awkward, is there a need for 'himself'? Could this be phrased differently? The first mention of Edward Paley in the lead doesn't say who he is. The final sentence (on the trips to France) is a bit of a damp squib and leaves things hanging. I'm used to biographical leads ending with death and place of burial and some concluding legacy statement. The lead does omit mention of large parts of Sharpe's life (there is nothing on his early life, for example). If a paragraph or couple of sentences were added to the lead to make it more of a summary, and to bring it to a natural conclusion, it would be better.
 * I've expanded and slightly rewritten the lead. Does this now cover the article adequately? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead is now sufficiently comprehensive, but I would suggest getting it copyedited if you think that would help make it even better. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The copyediting has already been done (while I slept!). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Early life : "his mother moved to Lancaster with her family, where Martha later resumed her teaching career" - switching from 'mother' to 'Martha' in the same sentence could cause some confusion. I had to go back a few sentences and check that his mother was called Martha and is the same person being referred to twice here. There might be a way to rephrase this to avoid this. Maybe: "his mother moved with her family to Lancaster, where she later resumed her teaching career"? Also, you mention the death of Sharpe's father - do you know when his mother died?
 * Fixed Martha -> she. Father's death was of course vitally important to Sharpe's life: it fixed the town of his practice, gave him contact to Whewell, etc.  Not sure when mother died, and I doubt that it is of much consequence to this article. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of instances in the 'Early life' section and elsewhere where use of 'Edmund Sharpe' vs 'Edmund' vs 'Sharpe' could be tidied up. "Edmund Sharpe was initially educated by his parents" - the Sharpe can be dropped there. And later in the article: "In 1863 he was joined by Edmund Sharpe as a partner" - the Edmund can be dropped there, surely?
 * Fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Architect : "Writing to William Whewell just before Christmas 1835" - this shift back to 1835 after a potted history of his architectural practice is a bit abrupt. Looking back at the early life section, is it possible to make clear whether this letter was just after he had returned home from his three years abroad? It also seems to repeat, or return to the earlier sentence: "Edmund returned home to Lancaster late in 1835, having by then decided to become an architect.". Is it not better to combine the two sentences somehow? Maybe mention the letter with the earlier sentence, and then refer to the letter again when explaining his early work on churches. You give dates for his four earliest churches, but no dates for the six churches he designed for the Commission (though you give one set of dates later). Were these all built in the same period?
 * Rewritten the two sentences. Added dates for the churches. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Architectural historian : When you first mention people like Ruskin and Rickman, it might be best to say who they are. I vaguely know who they are, but those not familiar with architecture and architectural history will either just register it as a name and nothing more, or will be constantly leaving this article to briefly read other ones, which is fine to a certain extent, but gets wearying after a while.
 * Added a few words of description. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC) About the correspondence in The Builder, who calls it "serious controversy and debate"? If that is the phrasing used by the source, it might be better used as a quote.
 * Rephrased and changed "serious" to "bitter", adding a ref. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC) George Gilbert Scott can be wikilinked. In the same paragraph, the list of his other works can be preceded by a colon. Also architectural terracotta might be a better link than terracotta (not sure if this has been considered and rejected, but thought it worth pointing out).
 * Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There are three instances where the phrase (or one similar to it) "John Hughes, Sharpe's biographer" is used. It might be best to use this only once and just say "Hughes" for the other instances. Or drop the second repetition and retain the third return to the full phrasing that is used in the 'Appraisal' section?
 * Fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgot to mention that the age at death for the subject of biographical articles is usually either in the infobox (there is a template that calculates it for you), or (in the absence of an infobox) in the article, or in both. Here, it is in neither.
 * Thanks to another editor for fixing that. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Re-reading the ODNB and DNB entries, I see that the following bits are not in the Wikipedia article or appear to be inconsistent with it: (i) From the ODNB entry: "In 1859 he was appointed JP for Lancashire, and for Denbighshire"; (ii) From the ODNB entry: "he became a fellow in 1848" (of the RIBA); (iii) From the ODNB entry: "the most famous works are a pair of all-terracotta Gothic churches at Lever Bridge, Bolton (1842–5), commissioned by his father-in-law" - however, the Wikipedia article currently only mentions his brother-in-law (naming him as John Fletcher, which is consistent with the ODNB which states that his wife was the sister of John Fletcher) - what's the story there? Were the "pot" churches commissioned by the brother-in-law or the father-in-law? (iv) From the DNB entry: "He then became a pupil of John Rickman". I presume this is not John Rickman, but as there is already a mention of someone with the same surname (Thomas Rickman), and this John Rickman is not mentioned in the ODNB entry, I found it intriguing (if it helps, the Dictionary of Scottish Architects entry says Sharpe was "articled to Thomas Rickman in 1836").
 * (i) Added.
 * (ii) Rephrased to include this.
 * (iii) Definitely, according to Hughes, the use of terracotta was suggested by the (future) brother-in-law. And "commissioned" may not be accurate either; an article in the Builder states that he was "the chief promoter and the largest subscriber" Hughes, p.247); not sure that that is the same.
 * (iv) Definitely not "John". Sharpe did visit Thomas Rickman for a few days in 1832 (towards the end of his university life) and corresponded with him later.  He may have been "acting as a research assistant" while on the Continent (Hughes, p.70), but Hughes states "there is no evidence to suggest that Sharpe spent more time with Rickman, or served any kind of formal apprenticeship with him". (p. 69). And by 1836 Sharpe was already running his own practice. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The changes and explanations here look fine, but I would suggest doing something to ensure against other editors in future trying to change it to 'father-in-law' and trying to add something about an apprenticeship with Rickman, as the sources out there do conflict on these points and later editors may not read this FAC. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added material about Rickman, along the lines I stated above. Re brother/father-in-law, I intend to leave that and sort it out if the occasion arises (maybe on the talk page). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've got as far as 'Railway developer and engineer'. I'll come back to the rest later. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Couple of extra comments added above. 02:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Continuing from the above:
 * Railway developer and engineer : "The eventual outcome of the conflict" - is it possible to give the year he was dismissed from the contract? In the 'North Wales' subsection, you mention that he had moved to Geneva by 1868, but fail to mention here that between then and Lancaster he had been living with his family in North Wales, in Betws-y-Coed. The reader only finds this out later, in the 'Personal and family life' section, but it needs to be mentioned here first, really. Also, you mention his family here, but you don't tell the reader until the 'Personal and family life' section that he has got married and had children (this is part of the problem of handling biographical chronology while doing thematic sections). Finally, in the 'Abroad' section, are the Swiss and French tramway/railways still extant?
 * 1. I've added the date (1839). 2. Rewritten to include the move to N Wales. 3. According to Trams in Geneva, there are still tramways to Carouge and Chêne-Bougeries. presumably along the same routes. There is still a railway between Perpignon and Prades.  I am not confident that these are the same as Sharp's lines, so have not made any comment in the article. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Civic life and sanitary reform : You say he was a "visitor to the national schools" - we have the article National school (England and Wales), is that what is meant here? What is missing in this section is how long he was mayor for, and whether this was an honorary title passed around the councillors, or something more political (that might be harder to source). The tour by Owen sounds interesting - was this an official tour, and what was Owen's role (I believe he was Hunterian Professor at the Royal College of Surgeons of England at the time)?
 * 1.National schools linked as you suggest. 2. Small expansion abut the term and the role. 3. Owen did indeed hold that post at the time. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Personal and family life : The article said earlier that Edward Graham Paley became his brother-in-law - was this through marriage of Paley to a sister of Sharpe? I don't see any mention of Sharpe having brothers or sisters? The other brother-in-law mentioned is John Fletcher, through Sharpe's marriage to Elizabeth Fletcher. Also, the exact year of the family moving to Geneva is hinted at ("seven years" in North Wales from 1856, "about three years" in Geneva before arriving back in Lancaster in 1866) but not given explicitly. Was it 1863, or is this uncertain? It is possible to link Chêne-Bougeries, but it is not really relevant so I'd agree with it being left unlinked here.
 * 1. Paley married Sharpe's sister Frances in 1851; I've added this at the end of the Lancaster practice section, where it seems to fit the best. 2. Date of move to Geneva done (above). 3. Chêne-Bougeries linked. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Other interests : While looking into the history of the Lancaster Rowing Club, I noticed that Sharpe is stated there to be living on the river ("Sharpe lived in one of the largest riverside houses at Halton Hall"), and the name of the district is the same as that later mentioned in connection with one of his sons (Edmund (junior) "later became Lord of the Manor of Halton"). As you've gone into some detail about where he lived at various times, I wondered if you wanted to include that detail as well? The final paragraph of this section, about the visit from Queen Victoria and the foundry works: is this not more logically placed in the 'Civic life and sanitary reform' section?
 * 1. In the Lancaster Rowing Club article the mention of Halton Hall is unreferenced. It is certainly not in The Social History of British Rowing used as a reference in the article.  Hughes has full details of Sharpe's residences; Halton Hall is not one of them, so if correct it must refer to his son, Edmund.  2. I've moved the Queen's visit as you suggest, but not the ownership of the foundry — neither civic nor sanitary! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The rowing material is here. No idea how reliable that is. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Hughes (p.533) Edmund junior took out a seven year lease on Halton Hall in 1882, after his father's death. But I will double-check directly with Hughes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hughes has confirmed that it WAS Edmund junior. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Appraisal : I know I pointed out who the author of the 1897 DNB entry was, but I'm not sure that there is a need to name his profession in that much detail in the article text - that new sentence could stop at 'Dictionary of National Biography'. If you want to name O'Donoghue, maybe quote him when he says Sharpe "was an enthusiastic and profound student of mediaeval architecture"? That would complement the quotes from Hughes and Price.
 * Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Photos of the memorial plaques would be nice, if possible, though the current standard of illustration for this article is easily good enough for FA (though I'm talking here about the relevance of the images, not the permissions and licensing).
 * Will bear in mind. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Couple of publication name quibbles. Should it be The Builder rather than the Builder? And The Architect, and possibly other publication names as well? One more quibble, from the 'Other interests' section: "which had been opened in 1782" - is the word 'been' strictly needed there?
 * 1. I was "confused" by Hughes, who omits the definite article throughout. I found a facsimile of The Builder that includes it in the title.  I have assumed the same for The Architect and ''The Ecclesiologist" and changed them. 2. "been" deleted. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is possible to look up the names of these magazines in library catalogues. From what I found, the definite article was indeed part of the names. You did miss one: Building News - I believe by the time the obituary of Sharpe was published, this was known as The Building News and Engineering Journal, but it seems that the shortened form of the name was common. Search in this book for this quote: "[The Building News] commenced in 1855, becoming The Building News and Architectural Review in 1860, and The Building News and Engineering Journal in 1863. Eventually in 1926 it amalgamated with The Architect to become The Architect and Building News." Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of the above comments are minor. I see some changes have already been made based on these suggestions. I'm not too fussed whether changes are made or not. It should be clear which ones are more critical than others. I'll check back later today or in a few days, have another read through, and likely support at that point. All-in-all, a very nice article and a pleasure to read and review. I particularly enjoyed the hint at an idyllic seven years in North Wales with his young family (reminded me of The Railway Children!) and the rather startling story of his youngest son in Africa (though the listing of his descendants in that article does seem to go a bit far, whoever has been doing that). Fascinating, and very much a 'Renaissance Man'. Carcharoth (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've struck through most of the points above, and have now supported. The remaining quibbles, summarising them down here, are: possible copyedit of the lead, the rowing material, the remaining architecture magazine name, and buttressing the article against changes where other sources give a different account (i.e. consider whether the article needs to point out the source discrepancies for the father-in-law and Rickman points). Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support (subject to image and sources clearance): I gave this article a detailed peer review. I am satisfied with Peter's responses and with the work that has gone into the article since. That is not to say that the article couldn't be tweaked and made even better, but that is true of pretty well all articles. Unless something major arises at this FAC, which I consider doubtful, I think the article will make a graceful adornment to the FA corpus. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

- a little more has been added on the first point, but it does not really nail where the differences with Rickman lie in the Gothic. Since the ref for this gives 16 pages in the main source, and Rickman's book is online, I imagine the material is there. All Rickman's periods have articles: "Norman architecture" "Early English Period", "Decorated Period" and "Perpendicular Period", which should be linked here (even if already linked, imo). It should be clear, with examples of buildings, where Sharpe's extra periods ("Transitional", plus 1 Gothic) sit. The links don't seem too bad now, though Grand Theatre, Lancaster was missing (added). Prince of Wales should go to the individual not the title. I'd still like to see more stylistic analysis of a couple of key church buildings, especially as none of the articles on the individual churches seem to have this (as opposed to descriptions of the architecture). The article has improved generally, especially from Malleus' copyedit, and apart from these points I'm ready to support. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments I made the following comments at the peer review (struck out where dealt with): "I've added a bit on how his scheme for Gothic architecture differed from Rickman's. For FAC I would expect more on this. The linking seems to fall off towards the end - eg when he moves abroad. Was he "conservative" or "Conservative/Tory"?  More analysis of a couple of typical churches would be welcome. Were all his churches C of E? He seems to have had relatively Low Church views, something of a contrast with many Gothic Revivalists, something that might be mentioned.  Can anything of his personality be detected beneath Victorian politeness?  The main source would ideally be supplemented by parallel refs to other, if shorter sources. I'm ok with it, but others might not be.  Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)"
 * Thanks for linking Grand Theatre, Lancaster. I have dealt with the Prince of Wales, and linked Rickman's four periods (they are not separate articles, but sections of English Gothic architecture).  All Sharpe's churches are recorded in List of architectural works by Edmund Sharpe, all have linked articles, and all are C of E.  I have no idea about his churchmanship and have found nothing about that in the sources.  He was so active in many spheres of life, but there is little or nothing recorded about his religious life (other than, of course, his church building).  And I regret to say that I know nothing about his "Victorian politeness".
 * For the other points, I need help. The relevant chapters in Rickman's book run to 70 pages of detailed descriptions of various parts of churches — windows, doors, roofs, fonts, etc. I do not have the skill or knowledge to compare and contrast this with Sharpe's periods.  Even if I had, are not the books primary sources (I may be wrong)?  If so, "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" WP:PRIMARY.  I have not found any such secondary source.
 * As stated in my addition to the Appraisal section, there is no such thing as a typical Sharpe church, nor am I able to identify "key" churches. I do not have the skill to carry out a stylistic analysis, and I haven't found a source providing it.
 * So, if the last two points are necessary to achieve FA, I should be grateful for further advice. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was hoping the 16 pages in the main source used as a reference would cover the Rickman points, and indeed most of the others. They are fairly basic points. I will take a look myself if I have time. If Rickman describes the chancel of Foo Abbey as in one of his styles, and Sharpe as in one of his, I don't see saying so is misusing primary sources or "interpretation". Johnbod (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So far as I can see, they don't. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sorry, I don't think it passes comprehensiveness in that case. What I'm asking really is not excessive in the case of someone who is mainly remembered as an architect and architectural historian. Sharpe's very short book seems admirably clear, and has a full list of dates for his periods on page 8, with a full page list of parts of specific buildings exemplifying them after each chapter. If you really can't get the Sharpe/Rickman differences from that and Rickman, or other sources, then perhaps you shouldn't be trying for FAC on architectural subjects.  Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a go; hope this is suitable. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly much better - give me some days to check it out. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long over this (but then you've not been very speedy yourself). It is clear that, while Sharpe's "Transitional" has not caught on, Curvilinear and Geometric are still very widely used by standard and popular sources, as a usually un-attributed sub-division of Ridgeman, and this should be said. This is useful, and the two are used by Alec Clifton-Taylor, Banister Fletcher, Simon Jenkins etc in books I have that are easily found. I was intending to suggest text myself, but won't be able to do this over the next few days. Johnbod (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the status of this concern now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agreed to do it myself with the nominator. I did some work on it yesterday, but there is still some to do. Shouldn't take long, but then I've said that before. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done enough to strike the oppose, and will support if I have time to add more while the article remains here. It's a pity this wasn't all dealt with after the Peer Review though. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Images checked -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Edwin Sharpe.jpg: Date should be date of photograph, not upload. Applicable for many other images. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All dates amended. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Hi Peter, reminder we'll need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing; I'll list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ian. It's some time since I was at FAC, and I did not spot that this is now a requirement.  Do I have to do anything further at this stage? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just sit back and see if anyone offers to undertake it -- ideally someone who can access a couple of the print sources will do so, if not I may simply make my own check of the online sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Source spot-check
 * Ref 76, OK
 * Article text: "The approximate dates Sharpe gave for his periods were, following 1066, the Norman Period up to 1145, the Transitional Period to 1190, the Lancet Period to 1245, the Geometrical Period to 1315, the Curvilinear Period to 1360, and the Rectilinear Period to 1550."
 * Source text: Tabular data supports article text.
 * That's all I can access so far; I've asked Peter if he is willing to email me scans or screenshots of three other selections from his offline sources. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional spot-checks. Peter was kind enough to email me a few scans of pages from sources I requested, so I was able to carry out these checks.
 * Ref 28, OK
 * Article text: "Also in 1851 Paley married Sharpe's sister, Frances."
 * Source text: "Like many members of the extended Sharpe family of which he became a member in 1851 when he married Miss Frances Sharpe, Edmund's sister..."
 * Ref 49
 * Article text: "In 1843 Sharpe was able to fulfil his promise to build a church for the Earl of Derby; this was St Mary, Knowsley, which was completed and consecrated the following year."
 * Source text: Prose supports article text; article text is sufficiently paraphrased.
 * Ref 109, OK
 * Article text: "The intention for the full line was to build it from the Chester and Holyhead Railway to Betws-y-Coed, passing through Llanrwst; it would be 15 miles (24 km) long, with a gauge of 3 feet 3 inches (991 mm).
 * Source text: Prose and tabular data supports article text; article text is sufficiently paraphrased. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I thoroughly enjoyed reading this and it's the type of article, imo, I really like seeing at FAC. I see from above that it's been well-reviewed by Carcharoth, Brian Boulton and Johnbod, all excellent reviewers, and to me it looks very nice. Two extremely small quibbles, 1., I noticed that Runcorn is linked twice in the body (although it's a long body, so not that much of a problem to be honest), and 2., for those of us who like to look at pictures and not necessarily read all the text, I think the some of the image captions could be slightly more informative. Otherwise, very nice job. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the age of the nom and the fact that it now has the requisite supports/checks and no outstanding opposes, I think it's time to wrap up and let any further improvement take place outside FAC. Thanks all, Ian Rose (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.