Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade II* listed buildings in Sedgemoor/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Grade II* listed buildings in Sedgemoor edit

Featured list candidates/Grade II* listed buildings in Sedgemoor/archive1

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 15:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is another list of listed buildings in the English county of Somerset. It follows the format of the sub lists of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset and the more recently promoted Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset. I believe it is comprehensive including images where possible, with brief information about each entry and links to its official listing documents.— Rod ^talk 15:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

"Europe's oldest known engineered roadway, the Sweet Track." This is correct according to all the sources I can find apart from the Wikipedia article Sweet Track, which says the second oldest. Strange!

There has been some debate about this since one was discovered in London in 2009 & other sources may not have been updated since. Although Sweet Track was built over the Post Track which would also pre-date it. I have tweaked the wording.— Rod ^talk 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some churches such as Church of St Mary the Virgin are shown as Parish Church, others such as Church of St Michael, Enmore as Anglican Church, and Church of St Michael and All Angels, Rowberrow as church, but the ones I have checked all seem to have the same status, so why the different description?

The original list was generated by a semi-automated dat download from English Heritage (now Historic England) during set up for Wiki Loves Monuments & these descriptions were included in that process. I have now standardised on "Church".— Rod ^talk 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to correct excessively vague HE titles, e.g. "No 10 and attached railings" to "10 King Square and attached railings", especially as other titles are shown as e.g. "8 and 9 King Square", and this is obviously carelessness by some people writing entries. However, I realise that may go against your practice in other FL lists.

I have tweaked these as suggested.— Rod ^talk 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A ten figure grid reference, accurate to the metre, may be helpful for a cross but it seems too exact for buildings.

I have shortened the grid refs & lat & long entries, but display options seem to be set by the template.— Rod ^talk 10:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A first rate article. Just a few minor queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Peter edit

An excellent list, as always. Just a few thoughts you may consider to make it even better.

Ref 1. Why not go to the "horse's mouth" and use Historic England's own site rather than that of Manchester City Council? It's at [2]

Thanks - I don't think that was available (or I didn't find it) when I started these lists). I have also changed it on the other Somerset LB lists.— Rod ^talk 13:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 10 and 11. Why not use the NHLE reference rather than British Listed Buildings (same reasoning)?

I thought I always used NHLE in preference to "British Listed Buildings" but must have copy & pasted these without noticing - now changed.— Rod ^talk 13:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 4–6, 12 (maybe more) Why not use the NHLE template for these as well. This will give consistency to your referencing (which I thought was a requirement for a FL).

I've tried to do this (let me know if I have missed any) - I have been nervous about using too many templates as this can cause problems with large lists (some of the Somerset ones are extremely large), most are generated automatically from the template "EH listed building row" but hopefully now consistent.— Rod ^talk 15:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking of "Historic England" It needs to be linked only on the first occurrence. After that it can be blocked by adding "|fewer-links=yes" at the end of the template on each occurrence. This will much reduce the unnecessary blue-linking.

I have tried adding "|fewer-links=yes" I didn't know about this "switch" on the template.— Rod ^talk 15:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

" Department for Culture, Media and Sport" that dept has been renamed.

Thanks - updated.— Rod ^talk 17:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence of para 1 in lead isn't referenced explicitly, is it covered by [2] so it can be moved?

Yes although Historic England isn't named in the act. Ref moved.— Rod ^talk 17:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought middle ages was written as Middle Ages.

My error. Fixed.— Rod ^talk 17:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3-9 Chandos and 2-7 King... en-dash needed. (And in the corresponding ref titles).

I have never understood this & therefore frequently miss it. I can't see any difference on my screen & don't know what to replace it with.— Rod ^talk 17:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance is at MOS:DASH. You need a – rather than a -. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the guidance and still don't understand why, but done (hopefully correctly).— Rod ^talk 20:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No-one ever said you'd every "understand why". Dem's da rulez boss. Be like me, get a "script"... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Type" feels over-capitalised, e.g. Manor House, instead of Manor house. Is that simply mirroring the reliable source?

These lists were originally complied from an English Heritage database download (with all the errors still in), but have tried to correct these. Not sure about "Cross Passage House" as this is a specific type (see Hall house#General description).— Rod ^talk 17:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent date format in refs, e.g. ref 2 is ISO.

Got that one. I can't see any others.— Rod ^talk 17:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You have to really pick nits to find things wrong with this list, but I had one question: was the publishing date in reference 3 meant to be italicized? Also, as an extension of one of TRM's comments, there are some date ranges in the Completed column that need dashes. If you need help with this one, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Looking forward to supporting this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've fixed the italicised date. Any help with dashes appreciated - as I said above I have never understood this one.— Rod ^talk 21:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Fixed the dashes myself. That had to be done manually because the script TRM refers to didn't catch these hyphens (maybe because they were in a template?). Everything looks good now. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --Pres N 18:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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