Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Listed buildings in Widnes/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 The Rambling Man 19:13, 21 September 2009.

Listed buildings in Widnes

 * Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this as a featured list candidate because it is a complete list of all the listed buildings in the town of Widnes. The text has been copyedited. It has not had a peer review because its format is similar to the FLs List of listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area) and List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area), other than that the "Refs" column has been omitted, the citations having been added to the "Description" column. The title has been recently changed by deleting "List of" in line with the consensus reached here. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Hassocks5489

Lovely, well-presented list as ever from Peter. Some small tweaks needed, but no significant concerns:

~Lead~


 * "These buildings are in three grades" sounds a bit awkward. Perhaps "Buildings are categorised in three grades" or similar?
 * "Before 1847, the area now occupied by the town of Widnes consisted of the hamlets of Farnworth, Cronton, Appleton and Upton, and a few scattered houses, separated by farmland much of which was marshy." The punctuation and the third clause sit uneasily together.  Perhaps streamline to "...Upton, a few scattered houses, and areas of mostly marshy farmland."  Various possibilities there for rewording, I think; not sure how best to proceed.
 * "...came to the area." "Reached" is more suitable.
 * Dealt with these. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

~Table~


 * Dates all sort correctly.
 * There is inconsistency in the use of 4, 5 or 6 decimal places for the decimal coordinates.
 * Does this matter? More than 4 decimal places seem unnecessary for larger buildings like churches.  I've tried reducing the coordinates for the sewer vent and the war memorial to 4 places, but these are not quite accurate enough.  Is it OK to leave them as they are? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Runcorn Railway Bridge's refs seem to have a line-break: was that intended?
 * No. Deleted. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure about this, but I think architectural styles such as "Perpendicular" are usually capitalised. "Classical" is more arguable.
 * Agree, capitalisation is more consistent. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to make the coordinates unsortable.
 * I wondered about this too. They seem to sort north-south, but this is probably of little use.  What do others think about this? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

~ALT text~


 * Present and looks compliant with WP:ALT: good stuff.
 * Typo in St Luke's Church, Farnworth text: "crenelated" →"crenellated"
 * In the former power house, perhaps "rear" instead of "back"?
 * Typos in Norland's House: "partway" →"pathway" and "lead" →"leads"
 * Typos in the Highfield Road terrace: "story" →"storey", "cxourse" →"course" and "garden" →"gardens"
 * Other typos noted in St Bede's Church and the Silver Jubilee Bridge. Plse audit all ALT texts in case there are others.
 * In the station pics, "a sign to the left" would be better than "the sign to the left".
 * All the above dealt with - and more. Hope all the alt text is now OK. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

~Refs~


 * Hardie (1950) appears in the Bibliography, so ref [18] should take a Harvnb template for consistency. Use  to deal with the non-standard page reference.
 * Thanks for that tip; done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Alphabetical order in Bibliography: swap Morris (2005) and Nickson (1987) round.
 * Whoops, missed it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are Foster and Cowan pamphlets or similar publications, rather than books? I'd be tempted to put them in Harvnb templates even if they are pamphlets, but this is only personal preference really.
 * They are pamphlets. I have deleted the Foster ref because it adds nothing to the Images of England description.  Cowan is now in the bibliography with a Harvard template. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My editing will be severely restricted from 1st to 18th September because of holiday (computer rooms on cruise ships are all very well, but not at about £20 per hour!), so I will keep this FAC on watch until Monday night. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  21:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Support from Hassocks. All of my comments have been addressed, and the point about precision of coordinates has been explained to my satisfaction (buildings with a small footprint such as chimneys → more decimal places needed to ensure precision). Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  20:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And just a further thought (not to do with the FL candidacy): on the Catalyst image, it might be an idea to obscure the registration plates of the three cars that are in full view. I can read them when I look at the full-size image, and blanking them out is generally advised these days because of the increased "popularity" of car cloning.   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  20:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't think of that. Done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - "The Hollies" should be sorted as "Hollies, The". --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  23:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I think this is a great example of what this kind of article ought to look like. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment
 * I am concerned about the similarities in some of the description details and the accompanying references. I'm not sure if this is a valid concern so have asked Moonriddengirl, who's more qualified in this area, to take a look. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly knowledgeable about copyright issues and should certainly welcome an expert's advice. It's a bit difficult when you're giving a brief architectural description to do it in alternative wording, etc. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is, but I'm afraid that I agree. US copyright law (which governs Wikipedia) not only protects the language, but also the organization of a piece. The facts are protected, but unless the structure of those facts is devoid of creativity, fact selection and arrangement is. Let's take for example the following text (I'm not carrying over wikilinks just because its easier not to):


 * This is a summary of the cited source,


 * I've removed the one sentence that was not carried over. Not only is this the same information in the same order, but some of the language is duplicated. The article's sentence "It is the only remaining shaft of an early sewage system designed to take effluent from the local chemical industry", copies that of the source, with only two words tacked on to the beginning. Rewriting this kind of thing is a pain, but, unfortunately, we don't have much choice unless we use limited amounts in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline. The site, sadly, does not permit free re-use: "© English Heritage 2007 - All rights reserved."


 * Another more problematic entry


 * This is a much more succinct summary, eliminating several sentences, but still contains some problems. Compare with the source:


 * Organization of facts is less the issue here that duplication of text is. The last two sentences of the article are almost verbatim.


 * This kind of close paraphrasing does constitute a copyright concern. It would be good to evaluate each entry to ensure that other such similarities in structure and language do not persist. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Response. OK, thanks for that.  I'll have a go at rewriting the problematic descriptions – but it will not be for a few days. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Further Comment - I'm now going to be incredibly rude and say the list doesn't match the sources enough. There's a few minor differences between the English Heritage site and the date column, which may need fixing. On the source... --Jpeeling (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Runcorn Bridge was built between 1864-68, listed as 1868.
 * Former power house was built 1901, listed as 1910.
 * Cemetery chapels was built 1897, listed as 1895.
 * Wayside pulpit, St Mary's Church was built circa 1910, listed as 1908-10.
 * Silver Jubilee Bridge was built between 1956-61, listed as 1961.

Reply - Not rude at all! In two cases I had given completion dates rather then ranges - amended; two were typos - corrected; I had given the pulpit date the same as the church - now amended per ref.

I have re-written most of the descriptions in a way that I hope now avoids any copyright violations. Are they now OK? Do I need to alert Moonriddengirl to this, or will she be watching this page? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They look OK to me, but I have asked MRG to return and take a look. One final seperate comment from me would be possible inconsistent capitalisation, for example some churchs are capitalised while others not, is there a reason for this? --Jpeeling (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Corrected. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, Moonriddengirl may be too busy to take a look but I'm pretty sure the descriptions are now fine, all other comments resolved. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry for my delay in responding. I've had a look, and I think that the descriptions have been well-rewritten. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the trouble you have both taken over this matter. I've learnt a lot.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.