Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of church restorations, amendments and furniture by John Douglas/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 18:39, 24 October 2009 [1].

---

List of church restorations, amendments and furniture by John Douglas

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/List of church restorations, amendments and furniture by John Douglas/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a companion list to List of new churches by John Douglas, a FL. Its format is precisely similar, and much of the text is common to both lists. It completes the ecclesiastical works of John Douglas. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

resolved issues from Bencherlite

;Comments from Bencherlite Good work. A few small thoughts before I support: I think you need to change the wording of "Most of Douglas' new churches have been recognised as....", since this is not the new church list. I agree - this was a touch of laziness! Amended. Personally, I'd like to know more about the churches in the lead and less about Douglas. Someone coming to this list from the new churches list will see five paragraphs of text, four of which are about Douglas and the same as before; the fifth one is virtually the same as before, save for the sentence defining the contents of the list ("This list consists of the works carried out by Douglas, alone or in conjunction with his partners, on pre-existing churches and includes restorations, additions and amendments to churches, and ecclesiastical furnishings.") Pick out some highlights. I have reduced the details in some of the paragraphs and added a section to the last paragraph giving some more specific information about Douglas' work in this area. Do you have a photo of an interior that you could use to show Douglas's work, as an additional image in the lead? I have not been able to find a suitable photograph of a Douglas restoration - and such a photograph might be problematical in that it would show both parts of the original church and also Douglas' work, which might be difficult to separate. However I have found an image of an item of church furniture which is out of copyright and this has been added to the lead. Also in the lead, is the information about the definition of category B and C Scottish churches relevant when there's only a category A in the list? Information about Scottish Categories B and C deleted. In the final entry, "has now been demolished" would perhaps be better than is now demolished". Done. The Cadw lists - where are they from? Internet or printed sources? (I'd be interested in getting hold of them myself, you see...) Some more details in the citation would be good (including date) This was a problem because the information is not available on line and I was not aware of any printed source. So I e-mailed Cadw, requesting details of the listed churches in in the relevant Welsh counties. They were very helpful and replied by e-mail attaching the requested details which I have been able to print. So I know the information is reliable, but I did not know how to reference it in any other way. I can add dates (ie 2009) but wonder if that if of any value. Only one of the three All Saints churches has a possessive apostrophe - is this a deliberate variation? No, but it reflects, I suppose, the inconsistency in this matter to be found across WP. The apostrophes should be there, so I have added them, and moved the relevant articles.

Strong support – a well-researched and excellently-presented list, that is clearly the result of a lot of hard work, not just in writing the list, but in writing the supporting articles. This is the type of list and the sort of long-term effort that those people who complain about the unfairness of a minimal redlink criteria in WP:FL? would be well-advised to look at. This list would not be as worthwhile without links to articles about the churches.

In addition, you have clearly visited some of the churches on the list to take photographs, and spent time looking for free-use images elsewhere to upload to Commons. A particularly strong pat on the back for the alt-text (can't have been easy thinking of variations on the phrase "it's a church"). No dablink problems, external links fine, sources all look to be reliable print / web, images are all free-use at Commons. Bencherlite^Talk 10:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Response. Thanks for the helpful comments. I have tried to answer all the points. I agree with your comments about the quality of Featured Lists; IMO they should be more than "good" lists and should also contain material of "added" value above what would be expected in a "good" list. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Just one reply to your reply: I think that adding (2009) to the Cadw lists would be helpful, for future reference. Thanks for the tip about emailing Cadw directly: if Anglesey council doesn't get back to me about listed buildings, I'll try that. Bencherlite^Talk 13:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Date added. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

Comments from Hassocks5489 I ran through this in some depth a few days ago, before Bencherlite's comments. Most of the points I would have raised have been resolved: here are a few minor stylistic observations... The table itself Because Grade A = Grade I, I would add the Grade I colour to the background of that cell, using this code:

A Applied background colour as suggested, but with a different template, which seems to work. St John's Church in Burwardsley and in Trofarth should sort before St John the Baptist's in Chester and St John the Evangelist's in Ashton Hayes, I think. Not sure that this is really necessary - but I've done it. Christ Church, Bala and St Mary's, Edmonton are missing line-breaks between the county and the coordinates template, causing them to wrap round. Fixed. Table notes In St Dunawd's, Bangor-is-Coed, "Douglas was married in this church in 1860" is snappier. Likewise with St Paul's, Boughton: "Douglas worshipped at this church". Or perhaps keep one as it is and change the other, for variety of prose. Agreed. Both amended. In St Peter's, Little Budworth: I suppose the "thin incorrect minimum tracery" quote is from Pevsner (it sounds like one of his!). I can't get my head around the meaning ... could you just check that the quote has been correctly transcribed? If it has, I'll just put it down as one of his eccentricities. It is, as you suggest, a quote from Pevsner - hence the quote marks. St Mary's, Mold: the blurb is in the passive voice: this is OK sometimes, but in this short sentence it sounds a bit odd. Changed to the active; in order to prevent repetition of text (Douglas ... x3) I have also altered the start of the previous entry. Alt text Second pic in lead (the prayer desk): "...the carved side of of the prayer desk in front of it" → "...the carved side of a prayer desk in front of it" St Chad's, Holt: "filed" → "field" St Paul's, Boughton: "A church is..." → "A church in..." St John the Baptist's, Chester: "tansept" → "transept" All Saints, Gresford: "...see from the southwest" → "...seen from the southwest" All above corrected (well spotted!). St Peter's, Chester: not sure you need to mention the car Alt text is, I think, supposed to describe the image as it is, rather than just the parts of it relevant to the article. The car is irrelevant to the article, but is rather prominent in the photograph. I will delete the reference to it if people think that would be more appropriate. St Matthew's, Buckley: I would remove "monuments which include", as not all of the fixtures described are monuments. Alternatively, try "fixtures which include" Text amended - I think this makes sense now. Refs In current ref [65], p. → pp. Current refs [91] and [96] are duplicated: both point to Hubbard p261. Current refs [111] and [112] are duplicated: both point to Hubbard p271. All corrected (well spotted again). Other bits Lead is excellent and well focused. Google coordinates link works; so does Bing. Sourcing, pics and all other aspects are up to standard, and I concur with Bencherlite's comments. I look forward to John Douglas becoming a Featured Topic, hopefully! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Response. Thanks for the detailed review and the supportive comments. I have dealt with the points raised. To get John Douglas to FT will require much work on the two remaining lists; they are on structures more varied than churches, and supporting articles will not always be easy to write for every object. But thanks for the encouragement. Peter I. Vardy (talk)

Support accordingly; everything has been dealt with or—in the case of the alt text on St Peter's, Chester—explained to my satisfaction. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Why are there several dates in some churches? I just skimmed through the list, so I may have missed the explaination.—Chris!_c/t 00:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Douglas carried out more than one item of work on many of the churches; each date represents one of these items. I have tried to explain what happened when in the Notes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - nice list—Chris!_c/t 02:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "His output included new churches, alterations to and restoration of existing churches, church furnishings, new houses and alterations to existing houses, and a variety of other buildings, including shops, banks, offices, schools, memorials and public buildings.[1] His architectural styles were eclectic, but as he worked during the period of the Gothic Revival, much of his output incorporates elements of the English Gothic style." "output" in consecutive sentences ... can one instance be changed (picky I know)? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Second "output" changed to "work". bellcote is hyphenated in the Wikipedia article, so either this version needs to be added as an alternate spelling to the Wikipedia article, or it should be changed to match the article. The glossary in both the Buildings of England and the Buildings of Wales series uses the word unhyphenated. I have added this to the Bell-cot article. "The church has now been demolished." "now" is probably redundant. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC) "now" deleted.

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• You use both {{citation}} and the cite xxx family of templates (e.g. cite book); use one group or another but not both (this should probably be fixed in other lists too).

• "cite book" changed to "Citation".

Dabomb87 (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Response Thanks for the comments which I have addressed. I suspect that there has been some change in the citation policy which I have missed. Also I was interested that you have run what appears to be an automatic program which, amongst other things, has changed all the <br> to <br />, although here WP advises <br> to produce line breaks (just interested). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions, though generally minor on this list, which is well done:

• "Douglas' father was a joiner by trade[10] and it is likely that this influenced his own work." is the portion after the citation from source citation 11, or is it OR?

• Not OR; it is in the next citation, but as this covers 4 pages, I have added a more specific reference.

• For St. Mary's: "The other works are attributed to Douglas; these are: the addition of a southeast vestry and organ chamber, a lych gate, and a screen in the northeast chapel." is that meant to be 'the' or 'three' other works. Also, the structure of the sentence is a little painful, with the semi-colon and colon. Could it be reworded to flow better?

• Wording amended; is this OK?

• In my browser (IE), for some reason the vertical images (like St. Chad's) have a wider cell than the other images. I can't figure out why. Any of the other reviewers have an answer?

• Sorry; I use Firefox and it works perfectly. Perhaps there is something I can add or amend that will make it work as well in IE. Open to ideas/suggestions.

• From St. Peter's: "inserted "thin incorrect minimum tracery" into the windows" this confused me as a lay reader. By incorrect, does the quote mean there is something wrong with his work, or is this some sort of technical term? Not sure how to clarify within the limited space available.

• This phrase has been a problem for another reviewer. It is a direct quote from Pevsner and Hubbard. It adds little to the description so I have deleted it.

• From Holy Trinity: "It is thought that the west tower is by Douglas" - Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Also an issue with St. Peter's, though less so.

• Hubbard gives a firm attribution to Douglas, so I have strengthened it from "thought that" to "attributed to".

Geraldk (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Response Thanks for the comments; I have dealt with what I can. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Note from Hassocks5489 Peter, the only alternative I can think of to fixing vertical images at 60x60 and centering them is to treat them the same as other images: i.e. not specifying alignment within the cell and fixing at 100px. (I have faced the same issue with my church and listed buildings lists.) I have IE as well, and I changed a few to 100px and previewed it (didn't save it). I thought it looked OK, although you have to decide whether the resulting uneven height of the rows is worse than the misalignment, which as you say only happens in some browsers. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I'll leave whether to make the changes per Hassocks up to the reviewer. The list is exceptional either way, and it is a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of decision. Geraldk (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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