Talk:Darnhall Abbey

Darnhall Abbey has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 12, 2018. (Reviewed version).

source review tips

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Darnhall Abbey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Carabinieri (talk · contribs) 15:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've given this a first read and everything looks pretty good. I've done some copyediting (feel free to revert anything you don't agree with). I'll be looking at the article more closely, but here are my initial comments:

I'd suggest expanding the lead somewhat. For example, I'm not sure there's enough context to understand the last sentence.
"crusade in the east" east is rather vague
There seems to be something missing from the subsequent sentences
"Monks were gathered from other, generally nearby abbeys (particularly Dore Abbey),[7] and it is seems that a group from there was in residence from c. 1268" in residence at Darnhall?
I'm not sure what meaning of collecta this article is referring to. Maybe the article should explain the term?--Carabinieri (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Carabinieri, we've crossed wires somewhat (as I didn't see this page), but as I mentioned on my talk, I filled out the lead already and added a map etc. The other points you suggest:

Yes; how about just name the crusade? So, returning from the Ninth Crusade.
And have tweaked the subsequent sentences: The Virgin Mary herself was missing of course, not for the first time.
Darnall, yes!
Have added an explanatory footnote explaining collecta—oddly, that Wikt. link no longer goes to where I thought it did—if it ever...

Thanks again for looking at this. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I've given this a more in-depth review. I just have two questions:

The lead doesn't contain any references. Generally, I don't have a problem with that as long as it merely summarizes facts in the rest of the article. However, in this case there are two things mentioned only in the lead. The first thing is that the abbey was given up because buildings collapsed. This actually kind of contradicts the "Closure" section, which claims that this happened for unknown reasons. The second thing is the part about Darnhall Abbey becoming storage space. Or is this implied by "monastic grange"?
I'm assuming that the romantic story in the "Foundation" section is the chronicler's account. Is that right?

Other than that I think everything is fine. I've spot-checked a few of the sources and they check out. It's well-written. Image is in public domain. Comprehensiveness is a little difficult to assess given the topic, but it seems alright. Etc.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carabinieri: Cheers! I've removed the stuff from the lead re. the buildings—I remember reading it somewhere, but can't for the life of me find it now, and the V. C. H. merely says "unfit" so it's a valid reflection of the sources. I've also clarified the fact that it became the grange for the new house. Yes: to the foundation section's romantic story—is it not that clear, do you think?

You'red dead right about comprehensiveness; I think this is pretty much all that is known on the place since it existed for such a short space of time—no FAC material here :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 06:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for your responses and for the great work on this article. I'm going ahead and promoting it.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carabinieri: That's really very kind of you to say so! Thanks very much for all your work and help too :) Cheers! —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13th or 14th century?

"Darnhall Abbey was a late-thirteenth century abbey in Cheshire, founded by King Edward I sometime in the years around 1370." Isn't that late-14th century, or am I missing something? ETA or is the lead incorrect, the dates seem to be 12xx in the text but don't quite match up. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typos, @Espresso Addict:, a consequence of a less-than-thorough GA review...and less-than-through writing in the first place :) Well spotted. Next time: WP:BEBOLD! —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see a new GA at the project! I'm seriously sleep-deprived here, or I would indeed have just edited it -- I hate wading in to fix what look like errors in FAs/GAs, as there's often a subtle reason that isn't obvious (calendar changes & the like). Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]