Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the English Midlands/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 23:03, 30 December 2010.

List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the English Midlands

 * Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a sister list to List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England, recently promoted as a FL. The first two paragraphs of the lead are identical, and the format used is the same. It is a complete list of the churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the counties of the English Midlands. The text has been copyedited. Every church in the list has a related article of at least Start Grade. The information given in the notes is not limited to a summary of the article, but often contains a fact which might be of sufficient interest to tempt the reader to click on the link to the article. All the images have alt text. One difference from the sister list is that the first column sorts on the name of the place (village, town, etc) rather than on the title of the church.Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The opening two paragraphs of the lead borrow from List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England, a Featured List, and does a good job of framing what redundant churches are, what the fund does and how it goes about it, and is of course well-sourced. The next paragraph is unique to this list and summarises the table; it covers the main points – numbers of preserved churches in the Midlands, spread of ages, status as listed buildings etc – and I can't imagine a way to improve it. The table is well laid out, with no space wasted and having a brief description of each church makes sense. The descriptions are concise and well-written. Although by no means necessary, it's useful to see that most churches have their own picture. A very good list and I'm happy to support it. Nev1 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I have deeply red this list and I must agree with Nev1. Like the prior FL, this list should pass the nomination. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 *  Comments Support from Hassocks Sorting, coordinates and everything else are working perfectly. Just a few observations from me before I can support:
 * →Lead:


 * This list contains the 72 churches: "describes the 72 churches" might be better.
 * almost all of them in Grades I and II*. I suggest "at" instead of "in", and confirm the importance of those grades by adding "the highest" before the word "Grades".
 * →Church notes:


 * St John the Baptist's Church, Llanrothal: overlooking River Monnow: needs "the"
 * St Peter and St Paul's Church, Preston Deanery: The church gell into disuse: typo
 * St Werburgh's Church, Derby: I suggest using the "Grade II*" blue colour for the Grade B cell. Use the code  |align="center" style="background-color: #87CEEB"|  to achieve this

That's all! Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  19:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have dealt with all the points above, other than the last one. Like Hassocks I had thought that Grades A, B and C directly matched Grades I, II* and II, but I cannot find this verified anywhere.  I believe (without being able to find confirmation) that in the early days of grading, churches were given the grades of A, B and C, and secular buildings I, II* and II, and that later the gradings were combined into I, II* and II.  Many, but not all, church gradings have been converted into I, II* and II.  As I see the situation, the gradings more or less correspond, but not necessarily exactly.  So the compromise I have used in the list is not to give Grade B the Grade II* background colour (leaving it uncoloured), but sorting B with II*, which seems to be the most pragmatic solution for the present.  I guess that in time the A, B and C gradings will be reviewed and converted into I, II* and II.  I have discussed this with Hassocks on our talk pages. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All points have been resolved; support accordingly.  Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  15:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


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