Talk:All Saints' Church, Shuart/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) 22:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead ends rather abruptly and leaves us hanging; it really needs to end with a sentence telling us what the archaeologists discovered.

Ok, I can fix that easily enough, I think.

How about now? Nortonius (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good now. Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• "The area of the Isle of Thanet where All Saints' church stood ...". There's an inconsistency between "All Saints' church" and "All Saints' Church" throughout the article.

Yes, I'd wondered about it: it's a bit like "an archbishop of Canterbury" vs "Archbishop Thingummy", I think; I can go through and work each instance on its own merit, or do you suggest choosing one and sticking with it? On the other hand, I think the capitalising of "Church" in all cases is perhaps foggy thinking on my part following the capitalisation in the article's title, which I think is correct: if so, perhaps all other instances can go without capitals...? Nortonius (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd definitely go with a consistent "All Saints' Church" throughout the article, which matches the article's title. Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Nortonius (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Origin

• "... if the land that Christ Church acquired on the Isle of Thanet in the 10th century was the same as the "Liberty" shown on Thomas Elmham's map from the early 15th century, then the site of All Saints' church, Shuart, must have been included." I'm a bit worried about attributing that to File:Mappa Thaneti Insule.jpg, as it looks very much like original research.

Ah, that's actually a paraphrase of Jenkins 1981, which is the first item in the relevant citation, and I only bunged in the link to an image so people could see what he meant: no OR there, honest! Nortonius (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Expansion

• "The first record to mention All Saints' explicitly dates from 1284". I've read that e few times and I can't quite get whether it means "explicity dates", or "mentions All Saints' explicitly". It would be less ambiguous to say something like "The first record to explicitly mention All Saints' dates from 1284", if that's what's meant.

Yes that's what it means, I just didn't want to split the infinitive! ;o) "explicitly to mention" would be better than what's there, or go with what you said! Nortonius (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There is that. As an alternative then I'd suggest "explicitly to mention All Saints' ..." Malleus Fatuorum 03:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Nortonius (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1296, the archbishop settled a dispute concerning a duty to pay for repairs to the church, specifying that this was owed by owners of property on and around part of 'North Street'". It's not clear to me what "this" is referring to here. If the dispute only concerned a duty to pay, rather than a specific bill so to speak, then how could anything be owed?

You can owe someone a duty of care, for example. Or it could be changed to "specifying that owners of property [there] were liable to this duty"? Nortonius (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to change anything, I'm convinced by your argument. Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Nortonius (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• "The document also gives relative values for the parishes of Reculver and St Nicholas-at-Wade ...". By now we've forgotten what document you're talking about.

Ah, ok, there hasn't been a document for a while there, but I do see what you mean, could say "Archbishop Winchelsey's instructions also set out relative values..."? Nortonius (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've now done this, any good? Nortonius (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine now. Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm about ready for bed now Malleus, thanks for all you've done and I'll be catching up with everything in the morning – I hope all the foregoing makes sense! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments by IP vandal

• I don't see the need for "however" in the second sentence of "Origin". Also, that sentence and the next one total three "Bronze Age"s--economise?

That "however" has now gone along with one "Bronze Age", per Malleus I believe! Nortonius (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Old English" and "Anglo-Saxon language" are deemed the same here. I wonder if it wouldn't be more clear to the non-specialist reader to replace Old English in the first sentence of that section with Anglo-Saxon, since later on you link to Anglo-Saxon period. You'd be surprised how many people don't know that OE and A-S are the same.

Yep, I did wonder! Changed, any good? I'm still a bit blurry this morning! Nortonius (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Remove comma between "deer" and "which" (unless Malleus put it there, in which case you should bold it). Same with comma between "Thanet" and "which"--I don't believe "the nunnery" is that precise already that the which-phrase can't legally restrict it.

 Done Nortonius (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Rm comma between "Westgate-on-Sea" and "and".

 Done Nortonius (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Rm comma between "Kent" and "in 679".

 Done Nortonius (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure you need to define charter as deed--removing it takes away a somewhat awkward parenthetic phrase (and lowers your [high] comma count by two).

 Done Strange, I've not even done it that way before! I think that was me thinking of the same people who don't know Old English = Anglo-Saxon language, I'm more than happy to take it out. Nortonius (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• "through a charter recording...": I don't understand the sentence. I thought maybe "through" was a typo for "though", but that can't be right either.

Hmm, trying to think of a better way to put it: "through" doesn't seem that odd to me, I read it as a simpler way of saying "by means of" – I've changed it to that, any good? Nortonius (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Church and community": I'd remove the "therefore". More later. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done – I think it made sense, but I can see it was unnecessary! Nortonius (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Nortonius, I just added your article at All_Saints_Church#Kent, and wanted to ask you how sure you are of the apostrophe. I'm not saying it's wrong, mind you. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure of the apostrophe: All Saints' Church might equally be "the Church of All Saints", QED? And, there are quite a few apostrophes at All Saints Church – I even noticed one "All Saint's", I'll say nothing about that! ;o) Leaving the apostrophe out, you get things like "Barclays", which looks wrong to me. Any good? Nortonius (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'm fine with everything else. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think we're done here now, and this article can now be listed. Nice work everyone. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.