Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC).

Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire

 * Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured listing as a companion piece to Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire, which became a Featured List last year. Together, I think they may be the only Grade I and Grade II* listed building county lists for England and Wales which have articles and images for every entry, although it's quite possible I'm wrong about that. With over 240 entries, this is obviously a major collaborative effort, but I'd like to record particular thanks to, who began the list, and , sadly no longer editing, who helped me enormously when my head was throbbing over some devilish coding issues. Any and all comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: It's a beautiful list. Ping me if this doesn't pick up a support in the next two weeks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s very kind. It provided a wonderful excuse for visits to a county I love very much. We’ll see how it fares and you can expect a ping! KJP1 (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Bilorv
(Planning to submit this review for WikiCup points.)


 * Bilorv - Many thanks for the review. Very helpful and I shall get right on to these. KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - Aside from the three questions above, I hope I've addressed all of the concerns. Could you take a look and let me know if you're satisfied. Thanks once again for the detailed review. KJP1 (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Couple of typo fixes here. Responded inline to anything that still needs addressing; everything else is fine. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - Had a go at rewording Llanarth Court. Any clearer? KJP1 (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is sufficient. No outstanding issues so it's a support from me, noting that I haven't reviewed criterion 5(b) (image licenses), nor done a specialised source review. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks indeed - for the review and the Support. KJP1 (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass
Sources all appear reliable and are what you'd expect for such a list. Some spot checks of online sources did not uncover any issues. buidhe 07:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks indeed for reviewing the Sources. KJP1 (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by TRM
(Planning to submit this review for WikiCup points.)


 * Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - TRM, many thanks indeed, for the review and the Support. I’ve asked RexxS to advise on accessibility issues, and will pick this up again if he has the chance to do so. KJP1 (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by RexxS

 * I've tidied the css markup for the rows: classes and styles are best marked up separately.
 * I can't see why Church Farmhouse, Caldicot should be, so I've set it to  . Please reset that if I've misunderstood. By the way, those classes don't actually seem to do anything at present.
 * I've added all 218 row headers with proper scopes, and I've reset the font-weight of the header cells to normal weight on the assumption that is what is desired. I can easily remove the  if you would prefer your row headers to contain bold text. Below is a quick accessibility review while I'm here. In brief: acceptable accessibility given the constraints of a list article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - Hugely appreciate the time, and the infinite trouble you've taken. You didn't misunderstand Church Farmhouse at all. It was one of the last five or so shots I added, after a trip down a few weeks back (that seems a looong time ago now!), and I forgot to reset the class to "with image". Many, many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from SN54129
Bloody nice looking thing this,, and very little left for me to say. Just to clarify Bilorv's point wrt copyright, Cadw is under the auspices of the Welsh Government who release the contents under n Open Government License ), which—with minor exceptions—is compatible with our CC-BY-SA requirements. I know you resolved the matter for now, but it might come in useful if you undertake a similar project in the future.This is a technical thing, and maybe knows (I'm sure he does!), but is it possible to make each image the same width, flush in its box? Apologies if that's a perennial noob question  :)Should the ref   be swapped in position for the 1979 cite?More of a psssing rumination, but I've never quite understood the philosophy of using harvard referncing for books but full refs for web pages. Why not, for example,, for example. But I have to assume it's a done thing if others do it!Is there a reason (perhaps customary, apologies again of this comes up all the time) that Listed buildings in Wales and Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire are "See also", rather than linked on first use? It strikes me as being rather more useful to the reader to know what he's reading about before he starts the list than after...Also on the "See also", alphbetise the list?I wonder if it's possible to give the reason for listing each building/structure? The obvious answer is age, but that being the case, say how old. For example, a couple of times you mention "dating from..." or "14th-century...", nt in most cases there's no indication of age.Hope this is OK with you KJP1, feel free, as ever, to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about :   ——  SN  54129  13:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * it's a trivial matter to make all of these images the same width (give or take a pixel or two): you just replace  with   in each row of the table. The image syntax is designed so that the numbers indicate the maximum size of that the image will be scaled to. Since almost all of the images have close to a 4:3 aspect ratio (as far as I can see), they are currently either or  –  so they have the same area regardless of whether they are portrait or landscape. If you change to maxima of , the landscape images will stay the same and the portrait ones will enlarge to 150px by 200px –  same width, but they will look bigger. It's an aesthetic decision: same width or same area. I've made a demo so you can compare at User:RexxS/CADW demo. You can see there are a few portrait images that need to be slightly taller because they are 3:2 aspect ratio (try setting  ). See what you think. --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , - First, 54129, thanks very much indeed for taking a look. It's appreciated. I shall go through your helpful suggestions, but it will be tomorrow before I can get to them. Second, thanks RexxS for the demo. Personally, I like it a lot, even though it does highlight the fact that some of the images, many of which are mine, are more foliage than building! Some of those, private, homes are damn difficult to get to. I'd be very grateful if RexxS could make the change on the article itself, but perhaps let's wait a bit to see if there are any contrary views. I'll ping in a few days. Hope both of you, and yours, are keeping well in these challenging times. KJP1 (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * if all three of us like the same-width version, I doubt we'll find dissent elsewhere. I've therefore made the simpler change of specifying just the 150px width for table images in the article. It's easy to revert if you change your mind later. Keep safe all. --RexxS (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking good,, many thanks. You too! ——  SN  54129  14:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copyright comment SN54129, that's good to know for the future. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copyright comment SN54129, that's good to know for the future. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

- many thanks indeed. Have sought to reply to the comments below.
 * Copyright - most helpful clarification and, as Bilorv says, useful for the future.
 * Image widths - I think RexxS has sorted, for which many thanks.
 * Arthur Clarke - This is an oddity. My copies are Volume 2 (first edition) 1979, and Volume 1 (second edition) 1980. So the V2 is actually earlier than the V1. But I agree it looks odd, so I've switched them. Just hope the page numbers of the V1 didn't change!, but I doubt it as the reprint was within a year.
 * sfn for books but not for web - to be honest, I didn't know there was an sfn style for web cites. It's the only one I can use now for books, but have always used for web citations. I agree it's a mixed approach but it's been accepted at FAC, so I'm hoping it's acceptable here.
 * First mention of Monmouthshire listed buildings including Grade I - I've put a footnote in the lead so that readers can see these before getting to the See also section at the end. Does this meet the need?
 * See also - I've alphabetised this, but left the General and Monmouthshire links at the top. I can make it wholly alphabetic if that's the preference.
 * Reason for listing - You're quite right that it is predominantly age - almost everything pre-1800 will be listed - but for II*s it can also be architectural or historical interest or rarity, or something else. I could try to put summaries in the Notes section, but it would risk making them rather lengthy. What I'm quite proud of in this list is that any interested readers - a possibly unlikely assumption! - can click on the links and read more about the buildings in their individual articles. Can you go with the Notes as they are?

I think this addresses the issues raised, except for the questions on the See also and the one above. Let me know what you think. KJP1 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * None of my remarks were major criticisms,, so I'm happy to support promotion. I've think you've done the right thing with Clarke (although as of now you have both volumes as 1979!), as I believe lists of sources are defined alphabetically, then sub-defined chronologically. The "See also" is a happy compromise (also!). ——  SN  54129  13:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

- Much appreciate the review and glad that the list was of interest. It's always good to know that somebody actually reads the stuff one writes on here! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I very much enjoyed reading this article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Promoted. -- Pres N  18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


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