Template:Did you know nominations/All Saints Church, Thorpe Bassett
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
All Saints Church, Thorpe Bassett
[edit]
- ... that the organ in All Saints Church, Thorpe Bassett, North Yorkshire, (pictured) was originally built for Claydon House, and was later discovered in a poor state of repair in York Minster?
- Reviewed: Friedrich Hofmeister Musikverlag
- Comment: New article
Created/expanded by Peter I. Vardy (talk). Self nom at 16:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
| Format | Citation | Neutrality | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| Length | Newness | Adequate citations |
Formatted citations |
Reliable sources |
Neutrality | Plagiarism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerda Arendt (talk) |
|
|
- Everything checks out, but I cant determine the reliability of the hook's source. Looks like a self published source to me. Other inputs welcome. Suraj T 12:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Nominator notified. Suraj T 12:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's taken from the official church information leaflet. Strictly speaking, self-published, I suppose, but I think that sources of this nature are usually accepted as reliable: the church should know the history of its own organ (reliably)! No other source available to me. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- WP:SPS doesn't seem to provide much help with determining the reliability of the source in question and a google search doesn't give anything. Suraj T 04:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- That particular advice applies to self-publication by individuals, not by organisations. IMO in this instance we have to use common sense. The source is the official guide leaflet of a religious organisation providing information about one of the objects in its possession. That leads me to accept that the source, and the contents of its publication, are highly likely to be reliable.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, what seems to be common sense to some may seem to be stupid to some one else who knows more. I cant seem to disagree with your points in this case yet and I guess I'll wait for more opinions before I agree. Suraj T 12:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- I can't imagine any "better" source for this - who should "remember" better than the ones who's history it is -, also thinking that such information is public, read by many, would have been questioned if wrong. I would accept it in good faith, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gerda. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, what seems to be common sense to some may seem to be stupid to some one else who knows more. I cant seem to disagree with your points in this case yet and I guess I'll wait for more opinions before I agree. Suraj T 12:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- That particular advice applies to self-publication by individuals, not by organisations. IMO in this instance we have to use common sense. The source is the official guide leaflet of a religious organisation providing information about one of the objects in its possession. That leads me to accept that the source, and the contents of its publication, are highly likely to be reliable.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- WP:SPS doesn't seem to provide much help with determining the reliability of the source in question and a google search doesn't give anything. Suraj T 04:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's taken from the official church information leaflet. Strictly speaking, self-published, I suppose, but I think that sources of this nature are usually accepted as reliable: the church should know the history of its own organ (reliably)! No other source available to me. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a consensus on the reference yet? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I found a list of Henry Bevington organs in the online book (published 1989) Organa britannica: organs in Great Britain 1660-1860 : a complete edition of the Sperling notebooks and drawings in the Library of the Royal College of Organists, Volume 1. This organ is not mentioned, but that might simply mean that it's not in the Sperling notebooks (about which I know nothing). --Orlady (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC) However, normally I would think that the church's own history would be reliable on this sort of thing. --Orlady (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC) The book also says in one place that Bevington was born circa 1769 (and had his own shop by 1794) and in another place that he was born circa 1796, suggesting some problems with recordkeeping. --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
One person queries the reliability; three people think the source is reliable. Is that not a consensus? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- The one person didn't return, so I sign it AGF, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- There we go. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)