Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St Botolph's Church, Quarrington/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2016.

St Botolph's Church, Quarrington

 * Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

St Botolph's is an Anglican church in Quarrington, for much of its history a small village in the English county of Lincolnshire. The oldest parts of the building are from the 13th century although a church has existed in the village since the Conquest. The church has some "puzzling" architectural elements, according to Nikolaus Pevsner, while its age mean it is grade II* listed. This article complements the GA-class one on the village itself, and forms part of a project to improve coverage of Sleaford articles. After a bit of an editing hiatus (owing to my studies), I am bringing it here. I believe it is comprehensive, reliably sourced throughout and neutral; the structure seems to follow many of the other Anglican church articles. As only my second FAC, I am not expecting this to be perfect; any constructive comments, queries and suggestions are welcome. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC).

Image is appropriately licensed, but it would be nice to see some images of the interior. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for conducting the image review. I agree that it is a shame there are no photos of the interior, but I haven't been able to find any free ones and won't be able to go there any time soon. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC).


 * Comments - taking a look now. Queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with how the word "fee" is used in the lead.
 * Linked to fief.
 *  but the Bishop of Lincoln presented the rector during the early 16th century - ditto "presented" here?
 * Linked to advowson.
 * link tracery in the lead?
 * Done.
 *  Charles Kirk the younger - should the last word be capitalised here?
 * Capitalised 'younger'.
 * I'd unabbreviate Rev.
 * Expanded both instances in the 'Description' section to 'the Reverend'
 *  The rectory was constructed in c. 2000 - why not put year or year range in?
 * The source says 'in about 2000', so I've used that wording.
 * Incidentally, I'd change all c.s to "around" to make it prosier.
 * All instances should now be changed to 'about'.
 * Thank you very much for your comments. I will correct them within the next 24 hours and ping you when I'm done. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Thank you once again for these comments. Hopefully I've addressed all of your concerns, do let me know if there are any more. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC).


 *  A "very narrow" chancel arch existed - why the quote marks? Maybe just say "slender" or "narrow" and drop them.
 * I've reworded as you suggest.
 * Also, for completeness, any info on surrounding grounds/churchyard?
 * Thanks for your comments. I've been unable to find anything about this online or in the printed material I have. I suspect that the churchyard has long closed, and burials now take place in the cemetery in Sleaford (see St Denys' Church, Sleaford); this is managed by Sleaford Town Council, which is responsible for Quarrington. Stating this would be OR, however. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC).

Okay, tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. Not my forte though... cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley
 * " the present priest-in-charge is the Reverend Mark Stephen Thomson, who took over from the Reverend Sandra Rhys Benham in 2016". The word "present" is better avoided as it may become out of date.
 * Removed.


 * "1–3 were under 16" 1 to 3 or 1 in 3?
 * the former, I have used the word 'to'.


 * First paragraph of the background section. There is very little about St Botolph's in this paragraph. Most of it belongs in the article on Quarrington (where it is briefly covered) rather than in this article.
 * While the first sentence or two are not relevant to the church directly (and I have now removed these), much of the remainder of the paragraph deals with whether Quarrington had a church (or two) in the early medieval period; even if this were not St Botolph's, it would have been a predecessor to it. I have altered the last sentence to be more explicit about this. Let me know if this is still a problem.


 * "In the latter half of the 16th century, the living of Old Sleaford became "extremely poor" and the church probably fell out of use." presumably you mean Old Sleaford church - "its church probably fell out of use" would be clearer.
 * Yes, I've changed this accordingly.


 * "some time after the restoration" Which restoration - the one in 1660?
 * I've corrected this and linked.


 * "This was replaced in 1812 by a Georgian-style building" But you say above that parts of the medieval building survive.
 * Do you know where it says that the chancel itself survives? If it's the sentence saying "A slender chancel arch existed until the mid-19th century and might have been pre-Conquest", then that chancel arch—the arch connecting the chancel with the rest of the church—remained intact until the mid-19th century (presumably till Kirk's restoration in the 1860s), despite the chancel itself being rebuilt in the meantime. I've made it clear later that Kirk also widened the arch, along with adding his chancel.
 * "building" implies that the whole church was rebuilt. I would suggest "Georgian-style chancel". Dudley Miles (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "the Church had 120 sittings" I assume you mean space for 120 people, but I think this needs explaining.
 * Yes, I've used your wording.


 * "Historic England suggest" No reason for the italics and Historic England is not italicised above.
 * You're right, well-caught.


 * There is a Harv error on ref 23. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing an error with ref 23 – let me know if it's still playing up.
 * It is ref 20 now. I am not sure what the problem is as I do not use the citation template. You have to have the User:Ucucha/HarvErrors tool installed to see harv ref error warnings. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments above, I've replied to all of them and hopefully addressed them through this edit. If you have any further feedback, do let me know. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Thanks again for clarifying those points - they should be addressed now. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC).
 * There is still a problem with ref 20. When you click on refs 4 and 5 you go to the source, but when you click on 20 nothing happens. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've fixed it – the name didn't include the word "Council" and so was not linked. I've installed the script and it's not showing any errors. Thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC).

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Casliber, Dudley Miles: Are you both comfortable with the Description section? It doesn't sound very FA-like to me. I wanted to give this one a third support, but I don't think I can get past that section. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dank, could you perhaps be more explicit anout your issues with this section. I'm happy to make changes where appropriate. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC).
 * I take your point Dank. Most of the description seems to be in the 'Architecture and fittings' section. How about merging the two sections as a single 'Description' section? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd make the 'Architecture and fittings' a subsection of 'Description' yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hm. My point is that if I came across the Description section as a web page, not knowing what I was looking at, I would guess that it was a page from a travel guide or a local advertisement; I would never guess that it was a page from an encyclopedia. But I get the sense that I am unanimous in this, so I'll move on. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dank, I have now merged the 'architecture and fittings' section into the 'description' section and put what was already there above it under the sub-heading 'location, services and facilities'. To be fair, a church is home to an Anglican community, so details of services, seating capacity, available facilities and the incumbent priest seem to be appropriate (past reviewers of similar articles have suggested that I should have put more in). Besides, this sort of information may well come under Wikipedia's scope as a gazetteer. Anyway, do take a look and let me know if there are any bits which really do need trimming. Casliber, Dudley Miles: do let me know if you are still happy with the layout. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I stick to copyediting, and rarely make calls on content. Thanks for your efforts here. I'm moving on. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dank, okay, thanks for the input anyway. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC).
 * I would leave out the details of services. They are not encyclopedic, and anyone interested would need to check the church's own website to see whether they are up to date. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dudley Miles, I've done this now. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC).

Comments by Mike Christie
The article looks in good shape. Just a few comments.
 * "It was granted to Haverholme Priory in about 1165, but the Bishop of Lincoln presented the rector during the early 16th century, before it passed to Robert Carre and his descendants." I think this needs a touch more explanation for those who've never heard of the right of presentation.  The link to advowson will explain it for a persistent reader but it takes a bit of working out, since usually the right rested with the diocesan bishop anyway.  I take it that what's being said here is that the right to appoint the rector first belonged to Haverholme Priory?  Otherwise there's no reason to have a "but" in the the middle of the sentence.  Then it's not clear from the lead that it's the advowson that Carre's family inherited, because "It" at the start of the sentence means the church, but "it" at the end of the sentence means the advowson.  How about "It was granted to Haverholme Priory in about 1165.  The right to present the rector was claimed by the Bishop of Lincoln during the early 16th century, and then passed to Robert Carre and his descendants after Carre acquired a manor at Quarrington"?
 * Yes, the Abbey did seem to present rectors in the 13th century, as I outline below. I've adapted your wording to reflect this, so let me know what you think.


 * "quingualgular": do you mean "quinquangular"?
 * Changed. I don't know what happened there!


 * "and chancel screen in a Decorated style": should be "and a chancel screen", surely? Or am I misunderstanding the intended syntax?
 * You're right, I've changed it accordingly.


 * I'd identify Trollope as an antiquarian on first mention.
 * Done – this became muddled when I made some of the changes outlined above.


 * "and, by the time Domesday was compiled, this included two churches": suggest "which, by the time Domesday was compiled, included two churches".
 * "A slender chancel arch existed until the mid-19th century and might have been pre-Conquest, but the earliest visible part of the church is the 13th century north arcade": I think the "earliest visible" part of this would benefit from an adjective such as "extant" or "remaining", to make it instantly clear to the reader that we are moving from past elements of the church to present elements.
 * Changed as per your recommendations.


 * I'm curious to know how Trollope, writing in 1872, can describe as "very miserable" something that was replaced in 1812. Is it clear from the source how he can say this?
 * He doesn't make it clear, so I've removed it.


 * As far as I can see there is only one rector linked to an article -- Charles Blomfield. Are there other rectors who went on to be notable?  (You might also add a note on Blomfield's appointment to his article, which doesn't mention it at the moment, though of course that's not an issue for this FAC.)
 * I would like to add a full list of rectors, but the only source would be Trollope's 1872 book plus later newspaper articles or references in Crockford's. While Trollope's work is useful for other details, he makes no claim that his clergy lists are complete and I am aware of plenty of cases where the lists he gives are not comprehensive. The Lincoln Record Society has admirably started a series devoted to compiling a full and scholarly list of clergy for every parish (past and present) in the county derived from original sources and providing biographical details. Unfortunately, it is only on its second volume out of roughly 12 (there are 23 deaneries and each book deals with two in alphabetical order). It will be some years yet before Quarrington (in the Lafford deanery) is covered. I was planning on waiting until that is published, but if you want me to add a partial list, it shouldn't take long, but do let me know.


 * "The Victorian period witnessed extensive restoration work at Quarrington, where most of the nave's windows were altered, and the chancel and part of the vestry were rebuilt by Charles Kirk in 1862–63; he also widened the chancel arch." Suggest: "The Victorian period witnessed extensive restoration work at Quarrington.  Most of the nave's windows were altered, and the chancel and part of the vestry were rebuilt by Charles Kirk in 1862–63, who also widened the chancel arch."
 * Changed as per your recommendations.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mike Christie, I believe I have replied to all of your comments. In all but two cases I have amended as per your suggestions. For the first point, I have adapted your suggestion, so do let me know whether it's okay. The other issue is with the rector list, and I've replied to that above. Thank you ever so much for posting these comments, —Noswall59 (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC).
 * Support. Your changes look good, except that I don't think you needed to delete Trollope's comment -- I was just curious how he knew that; perhaps sketches were made, or something like that.  Unless you feel it's actually an unreliable statement I would restore it.  Other than that, I made one change I think you missed, and deleted a comma I don't think you need.  For the rectors, I think you're right not to rely on Trollope, so a complete list isn't possible for now.  However, I'd say if any of the rectors Trollope lists have articles in Wikipedia already, or should have articles (e.g. they later became bishops), you could list those in a separate section titled "Notable rectors" or something like that.  Up to you -- it's not necessary for FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mike Christie, thank you very much for your comments and support. I've reatored Trollope's quote so all should be in order now. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC).

Source review: I can't speak to the pay site, but all the other sources are in order. Citations are correctly formatted and sufficient to support the text. Everything appears to be in order. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Coemgenus, thank you for carrying out the source review, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC).

-- Laser brain  (talk)  01:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.