Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed churches in Cumbria/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 pomoted by 02:54, 14 February 2013.

Grade I listed churches in Cumbria

 * Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a list of all the Grade I listed churches in the country of Cumbria. Its style and format follow the recently promoted Grade I listed churches in Lancashire and the previous similar lists. The text has been copyedited. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Excellent list, the usual great work by Peter! NapHit (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment . Another excellent list from Dr Vardy! I do have a few comments.
 * I think the lead might be improved with a little more detail on the churches. The second paragraph feels a little slight. Is there any more that can be added about the architecture of the non-Anglo-Saxon churches? Is there an unusually large amount of Norman architecture for the NW? St Martin's Brampton could perhaps be discussed as an unusually late grade I church. Also the Viking material could be discussed.
 * Fair comment. I have expanded the second paragraph (not too much I hope), addressing these points, and added a little about the Viking material in the last paragraph. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How does the national park and the current industry of tourism affect the grade-I-listed churches? Are any of them significant tourist attractions? How many fall within the park?
 * Only 10 out of about 50 churches are actually within the National Park, and most of these are located around the periphery. Considering the antiquity of almost all the churches, and the fact that tourism only started with the Romantic movement in the 18th century, I am not sure that this is particularly relevant to the architecture.  So why do I include this in the lead: mainly to give a snapshot of what the county is like to the reader unfamiliar with it, and to give consistency with the other related FLs. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. I suppose international readers won't have any clue that the Lake District is in Cumbria, and are more likely to have heard of the former. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason the date column was removed? I've always found it very useful, even if the date for such churches can be hard to determine.
 * Not only can the date be difficult to determine, I consider that a date column can be confusing. What date do you choose?  The date of foundation, the date of earliest surviving material, the date of the major part of the fabric, the date of a major rebuilding or restoration?  The relevant dates are included in the Notes column, with a discussion about their importance where necessary.  IMO this is a better way to deal with dates than to have a potentially misleading extra column. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to prefer it using probably date of earliest surviving material, with a footnote perhaps -- I generally sort these types of list into date order before reading -- but I understand the reasoning for exclusion. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * St Martin's, Bowness-on-Windermere: 'Painted on the internal walls are tests dating from the 16th century' -- what are tests, in this context? Should it be texts?
 * St Mungo's, Bromfield: How does the chantry chapel of St George relate to the main church?
 * St Ninian's, Brougham: What is the original date?
 * St Oswald's, Grasmere: 'Battered' is obviously a technical term; can any article that explains it be linked? Otherwise it might be simpler just to write inward-sloping walls.
 * St Mary's, Lanercost: What is the date of the original priory?
 * St Andrew's Church, Sedbergh: This description is shorter than most of the others; can anything else be added?
 * I have dealt with the above in the relevant Notes sections. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Still doing some minor copy edits on the remainder of the table so I might have some more queries once I've finished. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and advice. I think I have addressed all the points you raised. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to support. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * Support another excellent list from Peter, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything (including File: pages) looks good. Will probably support after I've found time to examine the prose a bit closer.  Good raise  23:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Image review. No concerns.  Good raise  03:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "all major architectural styles except Modernism can be found in the county's Grade I listed churches." - Would like to see a citation here.
 * This is a summary drawn from the items in the list, which I think is valid in the lead. I have no source for this to provide a citation. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't say I agree. I see it as original research.  Good raise  20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Research???? OK it's gone. A pity because I thought it added value and interest to the lead. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could word it differently, in a way that doesn't go beyond what the sources say? By simply removing it, you've broken the connection to the next sentence.  Good raise  07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot think of a way of saying what I said without a similar objection being raised. Connection between the sentences altered. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "A large number of churches" - Could be less vague and would benefit from a citation.
 * Changed to "Many of the churches", although I am not sure that this is an improvement. Once again I have no source for a citation. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble figuring out the pattern behind your comma usage. Sometimes you appear to be using serial commas, sometimes not. Sometimes you appear to be placing commas after disambiguating locations, sometimes not. You're not placing the commas to accommodate the citations, are you?
 * "The most modern church in the list is St Martin, Brampton," - Suggest using listed instead.
 * That would subtly change the meaning, as there are other grades of listing besides Grade I. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.  Good raise  01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "was built in 1874–78" - "was built from 1874 to 1878" - See MOS:YEAR. Multiple occurrences.
 * It may be that you need to refresh your understanding of MOS:YEAR. In addition, to say that something was "built from" implies that those are its constituent parts. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, in isn't actually part of the date range, so MOS:YEAR#5 doesn't apply. I don't see any danger with "built from" though. Who would come to believe a church was made of years? Still, point taken, "between 1874 and 1878" would probably be better. I'm uncomfortable with the "in 1874–78" construct because I'd read it as "in 1874 to 78", which sounds awkward to me. I'd be fine with it, if it was "in 1874–75". In any case, I won't insist on the change if I'm the only one seeing merit in it.  Good raise  01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I accept that "between 1874 and 1878" is better and have made the change. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "designed by Philip Webb, who used a variety of architectural styles." - "... Webb, using a variety ..." would make it clear that Webb used multiple styles on this church.
 * Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't see the lead as adequately summarizing the article, as long as it doesn't mention how many items it has.
 * Total number of items added, with some amendment to the text. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

More to come.  Good raise  03:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "The tower fell in 1600, destroying the choir and the north transept, which was followed by a fire in 1604." - Awkward. Please reword.
 * Reworded as "... an event that was followed by a fire in 1604". George Ponderevo (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not seeing this change in the article.  Good raise  20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My edit didn't seem to stick for some reason, done it again. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Norman west doorway, and a Perpendicular east window." - Remove comma for consistency.
 * Comma removed. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "The nave dates from the same century, the south aisle was added ..." - Comma splice.
 * Slightly rewritten, but bear in mind that once again this is a comma-separated list, not a comma splice. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Perpendicular-style windows were inserted in the 16th century, the south porch was added ..." - Comma splice.
 * No, it's a list, the elements of which are separated by commas. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See discussion of next item.  Good raise  07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "The south aisle was added in about 1200, the chancel was extended ..." - Comma splice.
 * Again it's a list, not a comma splice. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "The nave dates from the same century" would appear to be an independent clause to me, just as much as "the south aisle was added in the following century, a north aisle and a south chapel in about 1300, and the chancel in the early 14th century." If they are independent clauses and a comma splice is the joining of two independent clauses by means of a comma, then I don't see how this can not be a comma splice. I'm not seeing one list here, but two, one list, containing one item, "dating to the same century", and one list, containing four items, which were "added". If you could point out where my misunderstanding lies, that would be great. I'm always happy to learn something new.  Good raise  01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't understand all this. I hope the nomination does not fail because of a comma or two! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not qute sure now what it is you're objecting to Goodraise. The text now reads:
 * "St Michael's has a central tower dating from the 12th century; the nave dates from the same century. The south aisle was added in the following century, a north aisle and a south chapel in about 1300, and the chancel in the early 14th century."
 * That looks fine to me. Has there perhaps been some rewriting since your original posting? George Ponderevo (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I would have picked another sentence as an example had I refreshed the page before replying. The current version of this is fine, but the other two remain comma splices to the best of my understanding. I don't claim to be a guru of English grammar, but until someone explains to me how I'm mistaken here, assuming I actually am mistaken, I'll have to continue to object. In "I came. He left. And she stayed", I can replace the second period with a comma without problem, because there's a coordinating conjunction in the form of an and, but if I replace the first period with a comma, I'll have created a comma splice by connecting two independent clauses with a comma.  Good raise  20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "This is a A long narrow church built in the 12th and 13th centuries,"
 * This makes it into a phrase rather than a sentence. I know that the notes in some lists are in phrases rather than in sentences, but I have tried to use sentences throughout. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, but it still seems clumsy to me to start an item's description with "This is a". How about "This long narrow church was built in the 12th and 13th centuries, with later alterations"?  Good raise  20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't really see the need, but done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

More to come.  Good raise  19:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "and a south doorway. A . a bove which the doorway is a carved stone from the early 12th century depicting s two knights on horseback." - A suggestion.
 * That doesn't really work, as it would make it seem that the carved stone is above the doorway and the windows. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about "A carved stone from the early 12th century above the doorway depicts two knights on horseback"? Just to move the two occurrences of doorway further apart.  Good raise  20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really work either, as it's saying that the early 12th century is above the doorway. Changed to "An early 12th-century carved stone above the doorway depicts two knights on horseback". George Ponderevo (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "The northeast vestry was built in 1911 by W. L. Dolman, who and converted it into a chapel by the same architect in 1922." - Another suggestion.
 * Seems reasonable, done. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "and was executed by George Jack to Webb's design" - Not sure what this means. Who designed the top stage, Jack or Webb?
 * "to" changed to "following". Does that clarify? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in responding, but I have been away. Thanks for the comments, and to George Ponderevo for the help provided.  I think that all the points raised have been addressed, and await any further comments. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "The top stage of the tower, featuring a saddleback roof with a lead spirelet, was added in 1906 by George Jack, following Webb's design." - Another suggestion.
 * "It was suppressed at the time of the dissolution of the monasteries, and was restored in 1925."
 * "The church is now redundant and is in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust."
 * Above fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not strictly required, but I'd like to see the list comply with WP:NOPIPEDLINK (e.g. ).
 * Amended. Did not know this is "allowed" - thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "and the roofs are in green slate."
 * "The church It is constructed in roughcast stone with a slate roof." - Avoid repetition.
 * "Inside the church is a three-sided altar rail, and a three-decker pulpit." - Remove comma.
 * "south Norman doorway" - Awkward. Please reword.
 * "In the porch are part of a 10th-century cross-shaft decorated with carvings of beasts, and a grave-cover, possibly from the 11th century; outside the church is a 10th-century hogback stone." - Why use a semi-colon here instead of a period?
 * "One of the monuments is by Francis Leggatt Chantrey." - What monuments?
 * Above dealt with. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for not having completed this review yet. Reviewing prose is a very time consuming activity for me. I'll try to get through the remaining items quickly.  Good raise  20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "This has been a Christian site since the 8th century..." - Considering that this is a list of churches and not a list of sites, I'm sure this can be said differently.
 * "The church was remodelled and extended in 1896–99 by C. J. Ferguson." - "between 1896 and 1899"?
 * Not quite sure what a "blocked south Norman doorway" is. Could you put that differently?
 * "consists of two naves, being which were doubled in size between 1490 and 1500"
 * Above fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Sandys Chapel" - Might there be an apostrophe missing?
 * No, the surname was Sandys. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "and it has a green slate roof."
 * "four bay nave"/"four-bay nave" - Consistency please.
 * "Norman features include three doorways, and the north arcade." - Why's there a comma here?
 * All the above dealt with, other than the Sandys chapel. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost through. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  23:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "the building of which started in about 1175–80" - This again. Reading it aloud, I stumble over the date format.
 * "It was restored in 1847–49" - "between 1847 and 1849"?
 * "Stained glass in the north aisle windows" - "The stained glass in the north aisle windows"?
 * "The nave and chancel of Holy Trinity date from the late 12th century; there is a Norman north doorway." - Not seeing the connection here.
 * "it was restored and extended by Sarah Losh, including adding an extension to the north." - Double exten-, double -ing. Would like to see this worded differently.
 * No improvement here. How about "In 1844 Sarah Losh restored the church and extended it to the north"? Or if you want to keep the new bit: "In 1844 Sarah Losh conducted a restoration and extension, which included the building of a chancel at right angles to the north of the nave." <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Inside the church are galleries on three sides carried on Tuscan columns, and paintings on the walls." - I'd put a comma before carried for easier understanding.
 * "a north doorway is said to be Norman." - Is there some sort of disagreement about it?
 * "St Michael's ... contains Norman features, including a south doorway, the arcades, and the chancel arch. The font is also Norman." - Why make this two sentences?
 * "In 1720 the body of the church"/"In 1689, the nave ceiling" - Consistent comma placement would be nice.
 * "in 1880–82 by John A. Cory, who also added the south porch." - Strong suggestion.
 * "was restored in 1880–82 by John A. Cory" - "between 1880 and 1882"?
 * "Later alterations and additions have resulted in the presence of Early English and Perpendicular features."
 * "The church has a cruciform plan, with a piscina in each transept." - Remove comma for consistency.
 * "Built in 1752–73, this church" - "between 1752 and 1773"?
 * "In 1655–66, Lady Anne Clifford" - "Between 1655 and 1666"?
 * All the above dealt with. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "In 1655–66, Lady Anne Clifford paid for the building of the northeast chapel and the rebuilding of the chancel." - "When she arrived in 1667 to see what she had paid for, she found nothing had actually been done and nobody knew where her money had gone." Can we reword this?
 * I don't understand this. Where did that second quote come from?
 * The second quote was my apparently failed attempt at humorously pointing out that the first quote doesn't say that these works were actually undertaken. Not a big deal, but why not make things as clear as possible? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  04:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh! Reworded. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That's it. I'm finally through. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  00:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Incomplete revisit. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  04:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Revisited. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


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