Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset/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 Matthewedwards 20:37, 21 April 2009 [1].

List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset edit

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of all the highest graded listed buildings in the Unitary Authority or North Somerset, England. It has a structure based on other lists of Grade I buildings and is supported by appropriate images and references. — Rod ^talk 14:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco

~~Oppose~~

There are many Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset, England. -- (1)Do not bold and link a subject (2)FLs intro sentences do not start as "This is a ___" (or any variation) (3)many is WP:WEASEL
At a glance, the lead needs to be copyedited as some of the prose does not read well.
The table should be in a separate section from the lead
The lead should summarize the list itself more

~~:*The table should not be compressed, some of the font is too small to read.~~

Fix the disambiguation link found

~~:*The headers in the table should not have color~~

The sorting does sort properly for the date completed. In addition, this column should be called "Date completed"
Some of the extra wording under the name column should be in the notes, not in this column
In the references, why is HSMO italicized? In addition, what does it stand for?
The footnotes should be in a separate section from the references.
FLC is not a substitute for peer review. Take List of listed buildings in Runcorn as an example.--Tru co 15:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I will work on the prose in the lede but I am unsure as the guidance you are using for the comments about the table - I based this on List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester which is already a featured list & includes the same headings & sort functions as this list, as well as having items 1 & 2 from the lede mentioned above.— Rod ^talk 16:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, okay you can follow that format as well. However, the lead should be set up like it is in that list, there should be separate sections for the table, so just attempt to complete what I haven't striked out.--Tru co 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed some more of your comments but having problems with the sort by date column as "c." and "early" or "late" much up numerical sorting NB this is the same on both the FLs Runcorn & Greater Manchester lists mentioned above.— Rod ^talk 17:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User {{sort}}, {{sort|#|content}} Replace # with the numerical order and content with the entry data. So you can make late century come "01" [first] or "03" [third].--Tru co 18:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'd not come across that template before - now applied to dates. Is there anything else you feel is still outstanding to do?— Rod ^talk 21:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

Lead

There are 35 Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset. -- Do not bold this, this is not the title of the list. In addition, this should go somewhere where you talk about the buildings themselves not the second intro sentence

This leaves nothing bold - I thought this was requirement?

Connect the first two sentences with the paragraphs that follows.

Done

North Somerset makes up~~covers~~ part of the ceremonial county of Somerset(add comma here) but it is administered independently of the non-metropolitan county. -- I don't really understand what "administered independently" means, elaborate? (or do you mean in the non-metropolitan county?)

I've tried to improve this

Its administrative headquarters are in the town hall in Weston-super-Mare. --> Its administrative headquarters are located in the +town hall of Weston-super-Mare.

Done

It includes areas that were once part of Somerset before the creation of Avon in 1974. -- what is It referring to?

It = N. Somerset - hopefully clarified

In North Somerset there are a range of listed buildings including the Clifton Suspension Bridge which joins North Somerset to Bristol and Clevedon Pier which was built in the 1860s, collapsed in 1970 and rebuilt in 1986. --> North Somerset features a range of listed buildings, including the Clifton Suspension Bridge that joins North Somerset to Bristol and Clevedon Pier. (no need for that part as it isn't specifically important to this list)

Removed

The manor houses include Clevedon Court which dates from the 14th century and from the 15th century Ashton Court and Nailsea Court. -- Of the listed buildings, manor houses include Clevedon Court, which dates from the 14th century, and from the 15th century, Ashton Court and Nailsea Court. -- Also, by date you mean the date of their creation right?

Done - date of construction

There are also religious structures with the largest number are anglican parish churches, dating from norman or medieval eras, with many being included in the Somerset towers, a collection of distinctive, mostly spireless Gothic church towers listed at List of towers in Somerset. --> There are also numerous religious structures located in the (county?), with the largest number being anglican parish churches, dating from norman or medieval eras. Some of the churches are included in the Somerset towers, a collection of distinctive, mostly spireless Gothic church towers. For further information, see Listed at List of towers in Somerset.

Done I think

Several of the entries relate to more than one listed structure where these have been group together as part of the same geographical location or where ancillary structures, such as the walls and gate in front of a building, are listed separately. --> Several of the entries relate to more than one listed structure, such as being grouped together as a part of the same geographical location. Otherwise, ancillary structures, such as the walls and gate in front of a building, are listed separately.

I've changed this as in this list only the Woodspring Priory has multiple listings for the same site (may be more of an issue with other lists to come)
List

Shouldn't entries like c1300 and 1317 sort before Late 13th Century?

Don't get that one
References

Ref 4 should be a note not a reference.--Tru co 18:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Thank you for the explanations which I have attempted to address as suggested.— Rod ^talk 19:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL. Great work from when I first reviewed.--Tru co 23:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Out of interest, how many Grade 1 listed buildings are there in the entire county of Somerset? Matthewedwards : Chat 23:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know this.--Tru co 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awnsering to Truco, according to Images of England there are 438 Grade I listed buildings in Somerset as of February 2001.

Thank for a really useful list, which I'd not seen before - however there are some problems with it. 1) its not been updated in North Somerset for example Clevedon Pier has been added since 2001. 2) In List of Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset we include Bath Abbey which Images of England still lists as A class - which English Heritage started removing & updating in the 1990s but hasn't yet completed. According to Bath & North East Somerset Council - who have a legal responsibility under the act - their are "663 Grade I listed buildings" see BANES listed buildings page section: What is the difference between the grades? - the discrepancy is about the number of buildings v the number of listings - see comment below.— Rod ^talk 15:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)~~Oppose~~ Personally, I don't see great problems in the lede except with the number; the buildings listed are 35, but you treated 6 as a single listed building, and while it was correct to lump the six entries in a single article on the priory, it is doubtful that in a list that should present the listed buildings as English Heritage views them, and avoid to leave the issue to the original research of the wikipedian. Also, I must observe that in List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester the entries from English Heritage are all listed seperately. Another source of serious objection is to me the presence in the tables of the "architect" voice: what sense does such an entry make when only two buildings have their architect known? I personally feel that this classification should be thrashed as useless, and replaced with something else: maybe, like in the featured List of listed buildings in Runcorn, it could present an image for each listed building named, and maybe, like also is present in the Runcorn list as well as every single one of the hundred listings of NRHPs. I hope none of these of my suggestions have came out too harsh, or that I may be have seemed rude in some way; if I have let me offer my excuses to the editors of this article, whose great work on this article I by no means misunderstand or miss to appreciate.--Aldux (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. As we have discussed elsewhere.. "on listing "closely related" Grade I listed buildings separately, English Heritage is not consistent. To give a couple of examples from List of Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset...Lansdown Crescent, Bath which has 20 buildings has a single IoE entry whereas Widcombe Manor House a single building with attached walls, balustrading, gates and fountain has 4 separate entries. It would seem ridiculous to me to list each of these separately & would make that list massive. These issues are not unique to BANES in List of Grade I listed buildings in Mendip you will also see examples of where I've groped them together... would you like Vicars' Close, Wells to have six entries in the list because of the (arbitrary) way English Heritage has divided it up for listing?" I'll change the total number in the lede as there are more entries on the register than items in the list - but I can't see any logic in adding a wall attached to a building as a separate article or list item from the building itself. We do not have (appropriately free/licenced) images of all the buildings - therefore I was selecting some illustrative images as the Greater Manchester list has done. I agree about the architects column & will remove this.— Rod ^talk 07:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adressing to of my main reasons of concern (the number of listed buildings in the lede and the architects column). Regarding the issue of adding images to the tables, I suspected that one of the reasons for not adding the image column was that there may be several blank spaces, and this could damage the article aesthetically, so I get your point fully. As for the issue of the six entries on a single complex, as I said previously, it's not as I don't understand: this entry for example on the west wall and just that is really dumb, in my honest opinion [2]; all the same, I have an uneasy feeling about lumping them together in a list that should reflect English Heritage - and so yes, if I was making the list I would treat them separately. But I understand that my view in regard is not a good reason to not consider this worthy of being a featured list, so I retire my opposition.--Aldux (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The table should be in normal font size. You refer to List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester, which also has its tables in a small font. That list was promoted some 15 months ago, when less notice was taken of accessibility considerations, and for it to retain its featured status perhaps its tables should also be rendered in normal font size. A relevant guideline would be WP:MOS#Formatting issues, which says "Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should not be specified in articles except in special cases." Struway2 (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - font size removed - these discussions have made me think I need to go back to List of Grade I listed buildings in Bristol, which I nominated to FL status about 6 months before the Greater Manchester one, and a few others I did several year ago.— Rod ^talk 10:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

"North Somerset makes up part of"-->North Somerset constitutes part of
"There are 35 Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset, they include the Clifton Suspension Bridge, which joins North Somerset to Bristol and Clevedon Pier"-->There are 35 Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset, including the Clifton Suspension Bridge, which joins North Somerset to Bristol and Clevedon Pier
"~~which was~~ built in the 14th century"
"There are ~~also~~ numerous religious structures ~~located~~ in Somerset"
"For further information, see those listed at List of towers in Somerset." Couldn't this be moved to the See also section?
"The entry for Woodspring Priory relates to more than one listed structure, these have been grouped together as they are a part of the same geographical location."-->The entry for Woodspring Priory refers to more than one listed structure; these have been grouped together becauses they are part of the same geographical location.
Why are the headers of the columns blue?
May I ask why there are no descriptions of the buildings, as in List of listed buildings in Runcorn? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - thanks for your comments. I've changed the text in the lede as suggested. I've tried to remove colours from the column headers - but not sure if I've succeeded. I could add brief descriptions for each building from the lede section of each article, however I have seen it argued that users can follow the link for further information and additional information just clutters up the table - I followed List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester and List of Grade I listed buildings in Bristol (both FLs) which don't include descriptions.— Rod ^talk 08:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the list is incomplete. Apparently, according to a report published by English Heritage in 2006 concerning the general state of the heritage in the South West region, there are, or at least were as of April 2006, 37 Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset, and not 35. Unfortunately, the report only provides numbers and not names, so I don't have any idea what are these two buildings (sorry if I'm being fastidious, I know you're starting to hate me - but all I really want is to see a great article, so please tolerate me just a little more ;-)). Ciao, Aldux (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Thanks for the comment (& why should I hate you for constructive comments to improve the article). You have sent me back to sources trying to find the discrepancy. I know Clevedon Pier has been upgrade since Images of England & that is included. The Heritage Gateway seems to have a problem - it still recognises Avon (county) (which was abolished years ago) as including North Somerset - but returns 0 hits as the listed building data puts N Somerset in the county of Somerset. I suspect there may be some A grade which are not found on searches of Grade I but may have been counted in the report you cite. North Somerset Unitary Authority doesn't publish the list in the area they are responsible for so I'm having a few problems but will continue searching.— Rod ^talk 09:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response You are correct. A helpful heritage office from North Somerset Council emailed a list of the 37 buildings within their remit which are on the register as Grade I. Unfortunately Images of England lists Parish Church of St Andrew in Clevedon as Grade A & Tyntesfield as Grade II*, as they have both been made Grade I since 2001, however I've now included them in the list.— Rod ^talk 12:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, the list is now complete. For this and for having adressed several problems raised I now support this article for achieving featured status. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues according to User:Quadell:
- Beware of overlinking. It's unlikely that someone would want to know what a "church" is based on this article, so I'd unlink church in the lead. Consider unlinking England too.
- In my opinion, the last paragraph of the lead should be converted into a note.
- Is it really useful to be able to sort on Grid Ref?

My hat's off to you, incidentally, on getting the date sorting worked out. And congrats on a great list. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - thanks for the comments. I've removed the 2 wikilinks to church & England, stopped sorting by grid ref & removed the last para of the lede re Woodspring Priory as there was already a note explaining that it included other structures.— Rod ^talk 11:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful. All resolved. Support! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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