Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Navenby


 * 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 00:05, 19 April 2008.

Navenby

 * previous FAC (23:41, 8 March 2008)

Self-nomination: This article was nominated for FA too early last time, but hopefully this time it might be OK. It has been through a Peer Review and has just achieved GA status after a lot of work over the past few weeks. All concerns with copyright on photographs has been cleared up since last time too, with official permission for all, except the ones taken by me, now held by Wikipedia. I am happy to do whatever work needed to get it through to FA, just tell me what to do! -- seahamlass  17:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * This site Pastscape might help you with your Grade II building issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ealdgyth. It didn't help me with one, but I got a great new ref for another that I wasn't even looking for!-- seahamlass  19:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments: OK, I've seen this article emmerge over the last few months from a troubled (but promising) stub to FAC, where we're at today. I really want this to pass FA this time round. Here's my comments/queries/challenges for now:
 * 1) Prose: The most striking need of this article is a good copy-edit by someone with fresh eyes; the content is all there in place, it just needs to be written slightly clearer in some cases. I'd recommend the aid of User:Malleus Fatuarum and/or User:Epbr123 (but can't guarantee they will help).
 * Done: ''User:Malleus Fatuarum carried out a marathon session on it on April 13.
 * 1) Scope: I'm still concerned that the article discusses alot about nearby Lincoln, particularly in the "Sports and recreation" section. Of course it will have an impact upon Navenby, but the cultural/commericial link with the city isn't made clear enough in the article. Would it be accurate (and verifable) to say Navenby is a dormitory village for Lincoln perhaps?
 * Done: The fact it is a dormitory village was already mentioned in the 'modern history' section, but I have explanded this slightly.
 * 1) Images: Not a barrier to FA by any means, but to my tastes and sensibilities, there are way too many images for the article. Less really can be more! For example, Manchester, a major metropolis has 5 images in History (compared with 6 for Navenby village), 1 vs 2 for Governance, 1 vs 4 for Geography, 3 vs 4 for Landmarks and so on.... Simillarly Neilston and Wormshill, both comparable village articles with FA status, each have just a few images distributed throughout, but retain sound presentation and context. I'd be inclined to reduce the number of images by at least a third, perhaps half.
 * Done: ''I have removed 12 or 13 now - I think. Is that any better?
 * 1) There are a few gaps in knowledge under Governance. In this section we're missing stuff on how Navenby was governed between the Local Government Act 1888 and Local Government Act 1974; Was it part of a Rural District, Urban District or Municipal Borough during this time perhaps? Also, who was Navenby's first Member of Parliament, and when was he/she elected? These are important bites of information for readers.
 * Done: Hope is OK?
 * 1) In Governance, we have images of houses that provide little context for the text they accompany. Perhaps this image could go there instead, with a caption that these are the parish boundary markers?
 * Done


 * 1) I'd remove the three sub-headings under Transport. They simply split up three paragraphs that could form a good single section.
 * Done
 * 1) As above, I think it might be possible to rejig some the Geography section whereby some of the subheadings could go. Oldham tackles Geography well in my opinion, as does Wormshill.
 * Done: Got rid of three sub-headings

That's it for now. Hope these help. --Jza84 |  Talk 01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't know whether I missed this the first time around or whether it popped up while revisiting images, but left-aligned images should not be placed under level 2 (===) headers (see WP:MOS). ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I jiggled the pix around today - getting rid of 14 - so you probably came across this after my major crash and burn job. I think I've corrected this now, but please let me know if I haven't.-- seahamlass  22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 22:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Done
 * Comment: I'm coming round to supporting this article. I'm still worried about this Lincoln link. Could something about this be put into the lead about it being a dorm village for Lincoln perhaps? It's not a condition for FA, I just happen to think this would help. --Jza84 |  Talk 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. A well-written and well-researched article on a small English village. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Per Malleus. Hits the spot for me too. --Jza84 |  Talk 22:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why are the culture and economy/media sections near the end, and the transport section earlier. It seems to me like 'transport' is more a minor, infrastructure-related topic, and should be de-emphasized in the order of sections. On the other hand, culture and economy are far more important when describing a city, town, or region, and should be placed far earlier in the order of sections. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done: I have moved the economy/media section up, and the sport/transport down, using the Featured Article Wormshill on which to base where I placed each section.-- seahamlass  15:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It still needs fresh eyes to sift through carefully. Here are random examples:
 * "Navenby returned to being the rural village it had been before"—eeuw, "N returned to being a rural village."
 * Done: Changed as suggested


 * "Evidence suggests that Navenby was a significant staging point along Ermine Street; the Romans are reported to have maintained a small base or garrison in the village. A possible Romano-British temple and some burial sites have been unearthed in the village.[6][4]" Still don't like explicit mention of "evidence", generally. Here, it's repetitious; why not: "Navenby was probably a significant staging point along Ermine Street – the Romans are reported to have maintained a small base or garrison in the village,[2] and a possible Romano-British temple and some burial sites have been unearthed in the village.[6][4]" Are the burial sites possibly Romano-British too? If so, remove the fuzzy "some".
 * Done: I have removed the 'fuzzy' word 'some.' Agree it was unecessary. I have left in the word 'evidence,' however, as the finds unearthed by archaeologists at the site are classed as evidence, but I have chopped and changed these sentences a bit.


 * "Parish records exist for Navenby from 1681, although bishop's transcripts go back to 1562."—plural bishops'? Replace "although" with "and"? "hosted several annual fairs"—you mean several each year, or annual fairs in several years (1732, 1741 and 1750)?
 * Done: Swapped to plural bishops - bishops' Added 'each year' after "hosted several annual fairs"

Tony  (talk)  14:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment The presentation of many of the citations still needs to be improved to meet 2c of the criteria for my support. In particular, many of the titles used in the citations are editorial descriptions, rather than the given title of the source; this is misleading. Some dates are still abitrarily given where none or a different one is given on the source itself. The references for radio stations are just websites and don't mention Navenby. Publisher/author names are a little arbitrary too. I'm not a fan of "Suchandsuch.com website"; you wouldn't cite "The Times newspaper", for example. This is a big article and doing very well, so don't be too surprised that there are a lot of details to fix to get it to a polished standard. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK - all book refs are now standardised - I hope. I have gone through them all, but getting tired and blurry now.. Will do net refs tomorrow.
 * Done: Standardised the source titles on the web references. Hopefully I haven't missed any out.


 * I'll try something. I am amazed at the referencing and the amount of info. I was just thinking of some minor points and one not so minor. Minor first, parish council and county council need not necessarily be capitalised. I'm not quite sure on the RoadGhosts.com part in the actual naming of a website but...
 * I have lower capped parish council, per your suggestion, as it didn't actually name the parish council involved, just referred to it as an organisation. However, I have kept North Kesteven District Council capped up, as that is the actual name of the council. Thanks for spotting that.

A slightly more serious point is, do you have a source for the population (maybe link it to the right page on the ONS)...? Simply south (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done: I've added this one [], as it is from the Government, so verifiable and reliable etc. Hope this is OK?


 * Comment: I would prefer to see a little more in the governance section about the civil parish and its antecedents, and more about its ecclesiastical history (with respect to its ecclesiastical parish.) My source is
 * Civil parish: In addition to the information you have already included, Navenby civil parish boundaries were adjusted in 1931 to include the entire civil parish of Skinnand, and no other boundary changes in modern times have been recorded. (Youngs book, page 273) This could also be referenced in the Topography section, as it is the means by which the civil parish increased in size (Youngs book is an authoritative source for boundary changes around this time.) The GenUKI entries for Navenby and Skinnand also give some more information of unknown reliability and validity, but a better source should be found than it if any of this information were to be included.
 * Poor Law Union and Rural Sanitary District: Both Navenby and Skinnand had been placed in the Lincoln Poor Law Union in 1834, and they were also part of the Lincoln Rural Sanitary Districts. I suggest these go in the Governance section, as they were connected with the parishes, and succeeded by the local government changes which brought in rural districts. (Youngs book, pages 247, 273, and 278.) The GenUKI entries with the same caveat as mentioned previously also give more information.
 * Ecclesiastical parish: The article would be improved by adding material about its ecclesiastical status and history. The same Youngs book, same pages, states that Navenby ecclesiastical parish is in the Diocese of Lincoln, and that it was in Longoboby Rural Deanery until 1968 when it was transferred to Graffoe Rural Deanery.(Youngs book, pages 247, 273.) The Skinnand part of the current ecclesiastical parish had made the transfer from Longoboby Rural Deanery to Graffoe Rural Deanery in 1884. (Youngs book, page 278.) Again, the GenUKI entries with the same caveat as mentioned previously give more information.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just got back from 440-mile journey...so blurry eyed and shattered. Will look at this tomorrow. I really liked all the GENUKI stuff on Navenby and quoted quite a lot originally, but had to remove it as not a reliable source. I'll hit the books in the morning. -- seahamlass  19:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's still plenty you can add without going to the GENUKI site (which I agree is not really suitable to use as a source, but could be useful to use as a means to guide searches through reliable sources). I've given you a reasonable amount that could be added without searching further, as I've provided full references from a reliable source for much I what I suggested anyway. I think it would add to an article that is already good.  DDStretch    (talk)  23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All now Done:  DDStretch    (talk)  21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment – Either I have overdone it with the champagne or there is something seriously wrong with this sentence: "The road runs between the neighbouring villages of Boothby Graffoe and Wellingore and covers more than 2,100 acres (8.5 km²)." Waltham, The Duke of 06:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have forgotten to mention that the sentence in question is in the intro. I have also done some copy-editing in the history section; there were a couple of minor errors but nothing significant. I am now moving further down. Waltham, The Duke of 06:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just swapped that sentence around - it was rather confusing!
 * You think? :-D Well, that just serves as an example to show how important fresh eyes are, I suppose... Waltham, The Duke of 10:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The first paragraph after the block quote in the Governance section is not quite correct, and the cited reference doesn't actually verify what is written at that point, and neither does the Youngs book, which I used to make my previous comments. The text currently reads "Navenby was classed as an ancient and civil parish from the 11th century, until England’s break with Rome in the mid-16th century.[33]" The web-based reference (correctly) states that Navenby was an Ancient Parish, and that it is a civil parish, but the two periods of this don't coincide, and nothing is mentioned in the web reference or Youngs book about any break from Rome or the time at whicjh the terms "ancient parish" or "civil parish" came to an end. In fact, civil parishes only came into being after the reforms in Local Government in the nineteenth century. "Ancient parish" is the term generally used to describe the old parishes of England which combined together civil and ecclesiastical administrative duties. Following the Dissolution of the Monasteries (the split with Rome, that the passage mentioned), these parishes took on some of the duties (care for the poor, etc) that the monastaries and other religious institutions, then abolished, had had. Over time, more administrative duties were given to the parishes until in 1889, the Interpretation Act completely separated the two kinds of functions, bringing civil parishes into existence. Eccesiastical parish]es is the term used for the purely religious unit.  I've taken this from a number of sources, some of which are specific to [[Cheshire, but a general-purpose reliable source which contains all the necessary information would be the book:  pages 5–20. (including chapters with titles "What is a parish?" and "Ancient Parishes".) I suggest a change in wording along the lines of "Navenby was an ancient parish,  which began to take on civil duties  as well as ecclesiastical duties  from the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the Tudor Poor Law Acts onwards. It is now the centre of a civil parish and an ecclesiastical parish." (You can cite the Youngs book, page 245 and 273 for the last sentence. For the bit about the Tudor Poor Law Acts, you can cite the Winchester book, page 7.) I can make these changes for you, if you want, but I thought it was important to describe why they were needed here.   DDStretch    (talk)  11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All now Done:  DDStretch    (talk)  21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Support: The article is well-written and its coverage is comprehensive and factually accurate. DDStretch   (talk)  21:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.