Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Friends of Friendless Churches/archive1


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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:39, 20 August 2010.

Friends of Friendless Churches

 * Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a sister list to the recently promoted FL Historic Chapels Trust. Its format is the same, and the text has been copyedited. It is a comprehensive list of all the churches in England and Wales conserved by the charity called the Friends of Friendless Churches. There is an article for every church on the list. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 08:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support nomination for Featured list. I started this as a humble stub some time ago so have a vested interest. However, it has been greatly expanded into an excellent quality encyclopaedic article. It is easy to read, it is comprehensive in content, it has not been subject to any edit wars or dissent and it provides the reader with both an accurate and sufficient summary and a detailed tabulation or churches owned by the charity.  Velela  Velela Talk 12:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment &mdash; While this is a fantastic and informative list, I do think the lead should be expanded a bit more to summarize all sections of the article. See the Manual of style (lead section) for suggestions. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Response. I completely agree. After I submitted it, another editor divided it into sections with titles.  As this is a list rather than an article, IMO this is not appropriate.  I have therefore reverted it to the format in which it was submitted.  This is the format used for previous FLs that have been promoted, and I submit that it is appropriate for this list.  (I note that you also use this format in (at least one of) the FLs you have submitted).  Thanks for the comment.  I did not revert immediately because I wanted to receive feedback from other reviewers first.  I think we are in agreement. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Resolved. Therefore, strike own comment. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support a fine work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support That they seem to contradict themselves presents a conundrum, but you've handled it well. Courcelles 02:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note I shall be away from tomorrow for a week and may not be able to get to a computer to deal with any further comments until I return.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support off you go. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I made two minor changes (an arguably missing word and a stray fragment of publisher info); that's all that was needed. I've run all the toolbox checks, spot-checked some of the refs, checked that all the coordinates are accurate, checked the wikilinks and so on; everything is in order.  Pleased to offer my support accordingly ... now for the Churches Conservation Trust?!...  (I'll help with southern England!)   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  22:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


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