Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I 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) 02:00:51 22 August 2019 (UTC).

Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire

 * Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've not done one before and would be interested to know if this comes anywhere near reaching the criteria. This list combines two of my main interests, architecture and Monmouthshire, and I've been adding to this, and to its Grade II* companion piece, for quite a while. My aim for the II* list is to have an article, and an image, for every entry. Having got there for Grade I, I'm keen to see what else it needs for FL status. KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have just had a thought. Although I’m the main editor by number of edits, I’m not by added text. That honour belongs to User:KTC who created the table. Should I consult with them before nominating? KJP1 (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - Really helpful. I shall amend as suggested. KJP1 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I think my only comment now would be that you have note (1) and note (a), which looks odd...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - It does indeed! The issue is that Note 1 is embedded in the template and I just need to work out how to match Note a to it, so that it becomes Note 2. Shall get on to it asap. KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, I can't work it out quickly, so have moved the content to the main text as a temporary fix. Hope this works. KJP1 (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me - now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Very much appreciated. And thanks for your interest and encouragement. KJP1 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * There are a number of Harv errors in the references and sources. See User:Ucucha/HarvErrors for a script which flags these errors.
 * To do - need to run this.


 * "the authority for listing under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sits with Cadw." "sits with" sounds odd to me. How about "lies with"?
 * Done.


 * "There are 53 Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire.[7] The buildings include twenty-six churches, including a priory and an abbey, eight castles, seven houses, two bridges, a barn, a cross, a farm, a folly, a gatehouse, an hotel, a municipal building, a stables, and two elements of town walls." 1. I do not think you need to repeat "buildings" 2. As you list all the types, "consists of" would be more correct than "include". 3. As priories and abbeys are establishments including a church and other buildings, I do not think it is right to say "churches, including a priory and an abbey". How about "They consist of twenty-four churches, an abbey, a priory,..."
 * Done, as per suggestions.


 * "The county has a "fine collection" of castles, mostly dating from the Norman invasion of Wales,[8] with Chepstow "the glory of medieval south Wales"" These and other POV comments should be cited inline to named authors.
 * Done, to Simon Jenkins.


 * What is a "rood arrangement"?
 * Have bluelinked which I hope will help.


 * "One of the county's two Grade I listed abbeys" You say above that there is only one abbey.
 * Done - mixing up my abbey (Tintern) with my priory (Llanthony).


 * "hung, drawn and quartered, the last such sentences to be passed in Britain." I think you should say that the sentences were not carried out.
 * Done, by way of a footnote.


 * I think a column for the completion date would be of more interest to readers than the date listed, as in the FL Grade I listed buildings in Sedgemoor.
 * Not sure about this. They'd be pretty vague, e.g. Sedgemoor has a lot of "X century". On top of that, I'm afraid I lack the skill to amend the template.
 * Knowing whether a building is twelfth century or sixteenth century is of great interest whereas whether it was listed in 1952 or 1964 is of little or none. The only change which would be needed to the template is to alter the heading which I can easily do. However, it is not a deal breaker if you prefer to keep it as it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that I was wrong to say that it is easy to change the template as it is a strange and inflexible one which I am unfamiliar with. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You are inconsistent whether the first word of notes on each site is capitalised.
 * Done.


 * A first rate list, especially as it has photos of every building. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your interest, excellent suggestions and kind comments. Have taken all on board except where noted. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

SC
A splendid effort. Leaning heavily to support, but a couple of points first.

I did some minor tidying up of the sources as a couple of errors (this lot here), so please check I've not erred with the corrections. There is still a problem I cannot sort: FN15 has Hando 1951; FN16 has Hando 1961 and the sources list Hando, Fred (1944), so pick a number, any number! (or is there a missing source?) The second point is that I wonder if there a reason you give English locations for sources as "Woonton Almeley, Herefordshire" and the Welsh equivalents as "Monmouth, Monmouthshire"? I'd pick one format and stick with it (London, England and Cardiff, Wales or just London and Cardiff). That's it. Everything else looks tidy, as my old gran would never have said. - SchroCat (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - Schro, excellent to see you here and many thanks for taking an interest. Been a bit busy with visitors over the weekend but I shall attend to your very helpful suggestions/corrections/queries asap. While I've got you on, I wonder if you might be able to advise on the other list I'm working on - Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire. This isn't ready for FLC yet as I'm still to write about 8 articles and I don't do the articles until I've got the photos. It's only taken about 5 years of trips to Monmouthshire, but hey ho! The problem I've got is that I've screwed up the table somewhere but I can't see where. You'll see that, at present, neither the refs. nor the sources display. But if you go back to the last version on 20 July, they're fine. I was trying to correct the CADW cites which require "access-date", whereas I'd previously not used a hyphen; the English Heritage template doesn't. But I'm blowed if I can see what I've done wrong. Any advice much appreciated. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll drop a note about the Grade II* list on your talk page shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - Hando now sorted, and added to, and consistency achieved with the publisher Locations. Your Source amendments are spot-on. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Nice work, and meats the FL criteria as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Fromm Cass
I would be happy to support, of course, but can I just say what a waste of a column "function" is. "Abergavenny Castle" is unlikely to be a supermarket, is it? And I would envisage that by the very name, "Church of St Bridget", the building is going to be a church, rather than, say, a nightclub. Also, the column with the listing date in it: is this article about the listing of the buildings or the buildings themselves, that just happen to be listed? If the latter, then the listing date column is, again, a waste of space. I'd rather see that column blitzed which would free up some more room for the "notes" section. And in place of either of these columns, I'd rather see the year or century that the building dates to, as at the moment I am having to click away to find out. I'm sure this is a feature on other FA lists of the same type.  Cassianto Talk  07:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - Hi Cass, and thanks for taking a look. I appreciate the points, and you'll see above that Dudley Miles was similarly sceptical as to the value of the Listing date column. As to the Function column, it may be thought a bit more useful for Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire, where there are lots more "farm buildings" of various types. But the central issue is that I just don't have the skills to change the table. Dudley looked at it, and found it to be a complicated one. Another issue with it can be seen at the Grade II* list, where Tryptofish has explained a problem with over-templating which I'm going to have to address - very laboriously! So, in essence, the table structure is what it is, and I don't have the ability to change it. KJP1 (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging the eminent who usually sorts all my coding issues out.  RexxS, is this a big job to do?   Cassianto Talk  14:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The table that holds the list is implemented by means of a template that defines the columns, fontsize, etc. That has the benefit of ensuring a standard presentation across all of the articles that use the template, but has the disadvantage that changes to it will be reflected across all 40 articles that use the template. Changing the template itself is not a difficult job; the problem will be getting consensus across all 40 articles that use it. One partial solution to this would be to make the header template use a parameter that altered the display of the columns. It seems that somebody has been looking at that previously because this article has the parameter  which currently doesn't do anything.
 * If you get consensus for changes, I'd be more than happy to implement them for you, so don't worry about doing laborious work – I have tools to do those jobs quickly. I would look at the over-templating for you, but I'm rather busy at Wikimania for the next few days. If you ping me next week, I'll do my best to help out. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, , I think this would be a benefit and will do away with the rather pointless columns that I mention above. , would you agree with this? I would assume consensus is needed here rather than somewhere more central.  Cassianto Talk  10:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As it stands I agree with deleting, although I think it could be useful with more attention. For example, Great Castle House could be classified as a museum and Mathern Palace as commercial (as Abbey Hotel is). Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As it stands I agree with deleting, although I think it could be useful with more attention. For example, Great Castle House could be classified as a museum and Mathern Palace as commercial (as Abbey Hotel is). Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

,, - I really appreciate the interest, and for RexxS's insights and offer of help. But I am very cautious about changing the table format, given that would require changing the format of 40 other articles. As RexxS notes, this template is used by the lists of Grade I and Grade II* buildings for every other Welsh county. We would therefore first need to get consensus for the changes, and other editors would then need to put in considerable effort to amend the format/content of these tables to bring them in line with the new set-up. I am really not sure either that consensus for this would be forthcoming, or that other editors would have the time/inclination to make the necessary amendments. Although I appreciate that elements of the table, particularly the Function and Date listed columns, don't meet with universal approval, I wonder if these are deal-breakers for Featured Lists? If they aren't, perhaps we could finalise the FLC and I will start a separate discussion at WikiProject Wales to see what appetite there may be for making the suggested amendments across the full set of lists? KJP1 (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review
The online sources, being almost entirely official government sites, are clearly reliable and are consistently formatted. (Ought there to be a vertical line in citation 8, though?) The printed sources cover a wide range of dates from recent to historic, and most are clearly by established authorities and published by mainstream publishing companies. I hesitated over the three Clark books—local historians and historical societies are not automatically to be taken as RS's—but given the large number of university libraries listed by WorldCat that have thought them worth acquiring I think they pass muster. I have complained before about blue links that seem to promise readable text of a source but deliver only bibliographic details (e.g the Hando and Mitchell books) and I still find them mightily irritating, but by no means grounds for the thumbs-down in a source review. I have some other general comments, which I'll add below, separately, but so far as the source review is concerned the article is satisfactory, in my opinion.  Tim riley  talk   05:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Amended the error in Cite 8. I take the point re. Arthur Clark. He was not a professional historian, but rather a schoolmaster/local historian in the mode of Keith Kissack. Indeed, he was senior history master at West Monmouth School, founded by my alma mater when they were flush with cash! But I think he is sound and his work was a valuable contribution to the county history of Monmouthshire. In this, he stands with those other notable Monmouthshire authors, Kissack, Lord Raglan and Sir Joseph Bradney, rank amateurs all! KJP1 (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Support General comments from Tim

 * I'm with Cassianto about the "Function" column. It does no great harm, but is a waste of space, in my view.
 * The image captions seem most peculiar: why have "Upload another image" under each? I don't recall this in analogous articles I've previously reviewed. You might as well say "Add another sentence" after each paragraph in the text.
 * Yes, this is an issue. However, the "Upload" text is another embedded feature of the table, see centring below. With great assistance from User:Tryptofish, who worked out how to remove them, I'm in the, slow, process of taking them out of the Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire article. I shall see if I can do the same here. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And presto - carefully following Trypto's guidance, the extraneous wording is gone! KJP1 (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "some 60%..." – though it is not mandatory the MoS suggests words, not symbols, for percentages in the text: "some sixty per cent...". I agree (for once) with the MoS: words are easier on the reader's eye.
 * Done.


 * "Once listed, strict limitations are imposed on the modifications" – dangling participle. This should be something like "Once a building is listed strict limitations etc"
 * Done.


 * Bulleted list: I think the % signs and numerals look OK in a list like this, and I wouldn't particularly urge you to change them.
 * Many thanks.


 * "an hotel" – you dear, old-fashioned thing! Do you actually omit the aspiration when you say "hotel"?
 * I do not! Changed.


 * "focussing" – yuk! "focusing", I implore you.
 * Done.


 * "William Wordsworth undertook the Wye Tour in 1798 ... while Walter Savage Landor sought..." – According to the WP article on Landor he didn't try to set up at Llanthony until 1811, so "while" is not the word you want. A simple "and" will do the job more accurately and get us out of "Miss X sang Mozart while Mr Y played Beethoven" territory.
 * Done.


 * "hung, drawn and quartered" – "hanged", please.
 * Done. Don't remember why I did that, given that the Bluelink is Hanged.


 * Main table
 * General: I don't know if the MoS expresses a view on the matter, but to my eye the centred text, particularly in the Notes column, is hard on the eye. Having the text aligned left as here looks pleasanter, I think, and is easier to read.
 * Take the point, and don't disagree, but I've afraid the centring is embedded in the format of the table and I lack the skill to change it.


 * Notes column: I can't work out why some buildings are "Situated" and others aren't. Compare Abergavenny Castle and Court Farm Barn. Neither needs a "Situated" to my mind, and similarly passim.
 * Done, in their entirety, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

That reads like a litany of disapproval, but in fact I have much enjoyed this article, and expect to be supporting its elevation to FL in due course. Meanwhile, over to you, KJ.  Tim riley  talk   06:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - Tim, greatly appreciate both the Source review and the very helpful comments. I think I've addressed them all, except those which relate to the formatting of the table. This is a bigger, and more complex, issue, partly because of the technical complexities, but more because the table is used in 40 other articles, namely all of those on Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings in Wales. Thus, any changes made to this one would also affect those, which means such changes would need to get consensus, and would involve other users doing quite a lot of work to bring the format/content in line with the new arrangement. I've discussed this further above. Many thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I say! I had no idea the table would present so many problems to authors who use it. I entirely accept the points you make about having to live with it, and my views on the formatting are not so strong as to prevent my supporting promotion of this excellent article to FL. I have refreshed my memory of the FL criteria, and this page seems to me to meet them.  Tim riley  talk   10:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The use of the "—" shorthand in the sources list bothers me, but I'm pretty sure it's not against any rules as that's not a dynamic list like the references, and can find nothing else to complain about, so promoting. -- Pres N  02:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks indeed for passing this. If the "authormask" approach for single authors of multiple Sources isn't favoured, I can certainly take it out. I've used it previously in FAs, however, although I've equally seen others that list the author multiple times. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


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