Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St Nicholas, Blakeney/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:21, 6 November 2011 [1].

St Nicholas, Blakeney

edit

St Nicholas, Blakeney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading about medieval church graffiti in Cornerstone, as one does, and I realised that I passed one of the featured churches several times a year on birding trips to Norfolk. Turns out that it's Grade I listed, with bits dating back to the 13th century, and some brilliant stained glass, both medieval and Victorian. This is my first FAC venture outside my avian comfort zone, and a steep learning curve, so be kind to me. Thanks to Bencherlite for MoS fixes, Malleus for the GA review, and Matthew Champion for donating his graffiti images Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review. Fixed Birks, added coauthors, fixed date (1997!), removed now-redundant texts, fixed final ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck

  • All online sources check out, apart from #ref 28[2] which does not support the statement: "The parish is in the deanery of Holt, the Diocese of Norwich and the Province of Canterbury". Offline sources not checked. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That page says: "Home / Diocese of Norwich / Blakeney / Blakeney: St Nicholas"; if you click "more info", the url doesn't change and you get "Archdeaconry: LYNN (263) Deanery: HOLT (26305) Benefice: Blakeney w Cley Wiveton Glandford etc (26/038BJ)". The only fact in that sentence not backed up by ref 28, therefore, is the unsurprising statement that Norwich is in the Province of Canterbury, but that would be easy to cite if needed e.g. [3]. BencherliteTalk 04:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. OK, fair enough. I am happy to support. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I only had one significant criticism during the GA review, to do with an apparently out of place section the contents of which have now been integrated into the article. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. looking over the line on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. Polished nicely since I last looked at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, thanks for your suggestions on the early draft, and for your support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an active parish church, is there nothing to be said about the current congregation? In other words, is approaching this topic from historical and architectural points comprehensive for an active parish? See Stanford Memorial Church. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot less to be said about C of E congregations than for the US churches, but you are right. I'll knock out a section in the next few hours Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added a short section on the church's current activities. As with most quietly decaying C of E parish churches, I don't think that there is a great deal more that can be reffed to RS. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Simon Jenkins 1000 best churches, p.447 (1999), whose entry I recommended on the talk page, has 2 paras (most unusually) praising the "sense of vigorous activity" & various things - "a rare example of what every large parish church should aspire to being, also a community centre, market place and museum" - he must have vistied in the late 90s. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good info, probably better than a tourist website. Thanks, Johnbod. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also Ship of Fools' "Mystery Worshipper" may have visited - not an RS but the effective Michelin Guide, or is it X-Factor, for British churches, & I think could be quoted. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I'll work those in as soon as I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Jenkin's bit, updated to the 2000 edition (same page number). There's no Ship of Fools' review. I wouldn't fight to save the last ref, but it's harmless enough and no axe to grind. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been an image review? Ucucha (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, shouldn't be any problem, just needs someone to check Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, crud, I failed to highlight that when I went through. Jimf, when this happens (everything clear, maturing to promotion, one piece missing), please do post a request to WT:FAC. I'm sorry for missing that when I ran through earlier in the week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review. All images used are licensed with suitable CCA licenses, but I have some reservations about File:George Long.jpg, which is a recent photograph of a work of art, but there is no information about the artist. The subject is stated to have died in 1920, it is entirely possible that the artist died much more recently so it may still be under copyright. All have suitable captions. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for review. If the artist is unknown (it's an RNLI commission, so not someone famous) copyright runs from the date of the painting). Nevertheless, I've replaced the image with one of my own of the 15th century glass to avoid any doubt. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand he looks older than 27, so the death date may not be right. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on images: I have found some sources,[4][5] which state that George Long was 62 at the time of the rescue of the Caroline. Anyway the image in question has been removed, so I am happy to support as all other issues have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Both the refs are actually used for the article. George was 65 at the time he ceased to be a lifeboatman, but we don't know whether this was due to death or retirement. I check the churchyard gravestone list compiled by the local history society, but he doesn't appear, so either his stone is unreadable or he's buried elsewhere. If he did not dies in 1920, the painting might not be out of copyright even if the artist is anonymous Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/St_Nicholas,_Blakeney/archive1&oldid=1078806939"