Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed churches in Greater Manchester/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 14:57, 18 August 2012.

Grade I listed churches in Greater Manchester

 * Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list of the Grade I listed churches in Greater Manchester. The text has been copyedited, and the format is precisely the same as that used in the recently promoted Grade I listed churches in Cheshire. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS

A very engaging article, and copiously referenced. I have a few observations that might be useful: Overall, a lot of work has gone into producing this list, with a lot of attention to detail. Only minor adjustments should be needed for it to meet our criteria for a Featured List. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alt text is present and sensible on each image; that meets what we recommend for accessibility.
 * The table doesn't identify the scope of the column headers as suggested at WP:DTAB. That would simply require adding scope="col" to each of the present headers.
 * The table has no row headers but since the full, unambiguous name of the churches doesn't appear in the fields, I can't see a good candidate for row headers. There's probably nothing to be done about that.
 * The initial sort order is almost by 'Location', but sorting on 'Location' reverses the two "Manchester" and the two "Stockport" churches in my browser. Not a problem, but might be worth checking.
 * I wonder why you specify column widths? You set the overall table width to 100%, but also specify each column width in pixels, which obviously will conflict. One problem that may result is that different fonts have different metrics and you can't guarantee that 100px for 'Name' will fit as well as 100px for 'Location', for example. The other problem is that you've set the portrait images to be centred, but not the landscape ones, which works ok with browser windows up to about 1280px. After that, the 'Photograph' column increases beyond 100px and the misalignment starts to become apparent. You could centre all of the images, or simply remove the width for the 'Notes' column - those give different effects, so you might want to try each to see which you like better.
 * You have spotted that I don't really understand the instructions for formatting data tables (!) so your comments and advice are very welcome. I confess that I have copied from other lists, and if it seems to work ....it seems to work.  So, up to now I have added scope="col" to the column headers; and I've removed the width for the 'Notes' column.  And I think I've sorted out the sorting.  It works on my computer; will it work on all?  Many thanks for the helpful advice. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You've sorted out all of my concerns, Peter. You've marked up the the column headers perfectly, but don't forget you can always ping me if you're not sure with tables. I can't guarantee I can always find a solution, but I'm always happy to do my bit to help. The sorting works on the four common browsers I checked it with (FF, IE9, Chrome, Opera on Win7) and no doubt The Rambling Man will check it on the latest Safari on his Mac. You could always ask Gimmetoo if he still has his old copy of Safari 4.0 to check the sorting, but it should be fine.

I'm happy to support this nomination as I believe it satisfies our requirements for accessibility and usability. --RexxS (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support now images are checked, and Bencherlite's (and my) pedantry has been satisfied, I'm happy to support the list, great work Peter. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments from Bencherlite


 * Should "National Heritage List for England" be italicised in the first para?
 * I'm not sure. It's the title of a work, and I would welcome advice.
 * I don't think it's a creative work along the lines of those mentioned in MOS:ITALIC, and the article National Heritage List for England doesn't use italics. BencherliteTalk 13:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks; it's done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The sourcing looks excellent but I've not double-checked the details yet, nor have I checked the images (although I can't imagine that there's going to be anything too badly wrong with them). I look forward to continuing this review and supporting in due course. BencherliteTalk 22:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks to you both for your detailed advice. I admire the trouble you have taken to look at the detail; I find this sort of work horribly boring, which is why I do little in the way of reviewing. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Image review: No copyright related problems found.  Good raise  15:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – "Churches from the 19th century include some of the finest works of the leading architects of the period: include...". Second "include" seems redundant, and it is grammatically incorrect on top of that. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry; it was left in by accident following a recent edit. Deleted. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Query An editor has changed all the file sizes to 100px, without any discussion. What is the consensus opinion about the disproportionate appearance of the churches now? I think The Rambling Man prefers it like this. I don't like the disparity, but will of course accept the consensus. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer it this way, yes, as I noted in my review, but I certainly wouldn't want to enforce it, so I'm happy either way. (That doesn't really help, does it?!) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I quite like both of the two versions, so I'm not much help in deciding either. I suppose it's worth remembering that the thumbnails are only meant to give an impression of the church in each case, and a much larger image is only one click away for those who want to examine detail. I'd advise you, Peter, not to worry about it. This is a remarkably fine article and it loses nothing by small variations in the width of the portrait-oriented images. I've looked at both versions at several different screen resolutions and although one or the other may look slightly better at very low or very high resolutions, there's no clear winner for me across the range. --RexxS (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. I'll leave it as it is, then. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support NapHit (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Couldn't find a fault with it. Great work. GRAPPLE   X  23:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


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