Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St Helen's Church, Ashby-de-la-Zouch/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

St Helen's Church, Ashby-de-la-Zouch

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My last ancient building was a Derbyshire castle, so it must be time for a Leicestershire church. This quiet market town church was once a hotbed of Puritanism under the patronage of Henry Hastings. It doesn't face east, the nave is wider than it is long, and it has a finger pillory.

I've tried to avoid technical terms and not go into too much detail of the architecture to keep the length of the page reasonable, but if there are glaring omissions, I'll remedy if I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

[edit]
Thanks for review. Good idea with the plan, I've uploaded a trimed and centred version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice—looks much better, especially since it's bigger now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]

I've personally struggled with sources for articles on local history - all I could find were self-published books by amateur historians who don't cite their sources. For this church one has a choice of four books - but verification is difficult as the books can be tricky to find. The article uses Williams (1980) but the only library listed as having a copy on Worldcat is Pitts Theology Library in Atlanta. Why didn't the British Library keep its copy?

I agree up to a point, and although much of the descriptive stuff is obvious, I've tried to double check where I have doubts. Williamson, for example, gets the name of one of the Victorian glassmakers wrong. If I have doubts about the facts and can't verify (or if they are challenged) I'll remove them. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pevsner et al. (1985) cited but not in sources.
  • Most short cites end with periods but a few don't.
  • Is Braddick 2008 or 2009?
  • oclc numbers are nice for books without a isbn
  • Scott - published by George Brown in 1907 and White Lion Publishers, 1975. Which is it?
  • Ref 6 "British Listed Buildings" in spite of its name appears to be a commercial site with adverts. The same information appears to be available from the English Heritage site - currently Ref 20.
  • Starkey, Julia. St Helen's Church... a short tour Ashby-de-la-Zouch:St Helen's Church What sort of publication is this? What makes this reliable?
  • It's the current official church guide, sold in the church. I accept that it may not be totally reliable , and I'll double-check her claims
I've found the leaflet on the church website. The author's first name is given as Julie and not Julia. It is an attractive leaflet but isn't a suitable source for the church history. Aa77zz (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the core of the present building mainly dates from 1474 - surely it took more than a year to build.
  • "Domesday records that a priest was resident in Ashby," Not sure about this construction - Domesday isn't a person.
  • "An inspection at the end of the eighteenth century commented on the dirty transept walls" - Can an "inspection" comment?
  • "and is aligned at 25° north of east.[12][13]" Reference 12, Thompson (1927–1928), contains a detailed plan with a compass rose indicating that the church is only 10 degrees from an EW alignment.
  • The two refs were each referencing one half of the sentence, it's Starkey that says 25 degrees. In the interests of OR, I took alignments at several points inside and outside the church. None were less than 25, and most were nearer 30. I just copied the arrow direction in Williams without measuring it, but it looks as if his draughtswoman got it bang on with the angle you measured. I've separated the two refs, but given the OR and possible errors of my estimates, I'm inclined to keep both the referenced 25 (near enough) and the depicted angle in my plan. Even if the LAHS plan was correct, it would still be an exceptional deviation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I've done my own OR - screen capture of google earth and then measure angle in Photoshop. The result is 27.5 (+/- 0.5) degree. Thus Thompson is wrong and 25 degree is fine. Aa77zz (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A heretical thought: I think one could say that the church axis is almost 30 degrees from EW without a reference. It is not too dissimilar to saying that Ashby lies 18 miles from Leicester - and is obvious from a cursory glance at a map. Aa77zz (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about long delay, I'm back now. I accept what you say,but since there is a source that 25, I'm reluctant to contradict that with a measurement, but I'm open to persuasion. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the same time as that part of the tower, making it the oldest of its kind in the UK" - Starkey. What sources does Starkey cite?
I've struggled with this. I'm pretty sure she's right, but I'm still looking for a RS source. Similarly, I know what the type is, but struggling to RS that as well Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed claim of oldest Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The arch gateway at the western end of the churchyard bears a skull and crossbones, warning of a plague pit nearby in which the victims of the 1645 outbreak were interred." - What are Starkey's sources? How does she know the age and the significance of the skull and crossbones? (How old is the gateway?)
removed claim as to meaning. Visually, the gate is of mixed age, but the deaths heads look to be of the right age (OR) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The chancel east window contains arms of Richard I and Edward I which are among the earliest stained glass in existence." This needs a good source. English Heritage don't claim this.
Removed claim Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kirkland of Huddersfield." Organ manufacturers are well documented. There was an organ manufacturer of this name in Wakefield (14 miles away) from around 1875. The firm made a large number of organs - see Kirkland on the National Pipe Organ Register.
Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was first repaired in 1824,[26]" Ref 26 is National Pipe Organ Register. I cannot see the 1824 date.
You need to click on the link in "buildings found" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a problem with the dates. According to the NPOR website Kirkland was only active from around 1874 ie 50 years after the 1824 repair. The NPOR do not specify the maker or the date of the St Helen's organ - but the "Buildings found" box has a cryptic mention of Kirkland:
"Gatward notebooks Gatward, Willson Bradley Vol=05 Page=102 Kirkland; 3m/p [MusSt 1880 /08]".
I haven't tried to decode this. Perhaps Kirkland repaired the organ. I assume some of this refers to the British Organ Archive records. Also, how do we know that 1824 was the "first" repair? First recorded repair? What does your source, Williams (1980) pp. 7–9 have to say? Aa77zz (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the uncertainty about the organ's date, I've removed the 1824 date and stuck with the more recent restorations, verified by Williams and a brass plate on the organ itself. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the earliest glass is German, Swiss and Flemish work" Specify roundels in modern windows? English Heritage are more careful with "that are said to have been brought from Farleigh Hungerford (Somerset)"
  • "living" - needs a link?
linked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The new, larger church included a nave with tower and aisles, and chapels adjoining the chancel.[6]" with tower?
Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interior views - iPhones are not ideal for photographing the interior of churches. I've lightened the shadows (but one can't polish a turd). User:Diliff has taken a number of impressive church interiors but lives in London.
The lighting is invariably awful in this church Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sthelenscolor-02final.jpg appears very slightly crooked - the north wall appears to drop to the right. The plan in the Thompson article indicates that the walls should be square. The direction of the North arrow in the sketch is 30 degrees from vertical - rather than 25 degrees mentioned in the text and 10 degrees in the Thompson plan. I also notice that the buttresses mid-way along the walls to the north and south of the tower are denoted as modern in Thompson but as 14-15th century in your plan. Is this a change in Williams 1980?
The misalignment at least shows that I didn't copy it. I'm reluctant to redo to fix a minor error. I think we have dealt with the angle above. Yes, and William's draughtswoman shows more detail on this feature so I'm inclined to follow her unless you feel that's the wrong decision Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reread the article and it looks good. I have a few more very minor points:

  • Foundation to 1547: "The parish is in the deanery of North West Leicestershire, the Diocese of Leicester and the Province of Canterbury." I suspect this is the current organization and thus doesn't really belong in this section.
Moved to end of next section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and enlarged in by William Hastings in 1474" extra "in" - or move year.
Left over when I moved date, fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Julia Starkey -> Julie Starkey according to the leaflet on the church website (possibly the Administrator of Griffydam Primary School)
Fixed. I think whoever she is, she is actually pretty reliable where I have been able to cross check Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the Robert Mundi/Mundy slab with the two Elizabeths - a photo would be nice.
I'll go and take a picture later today and upload it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links: Images. Some more info on the link would be nice.
Yes, expanded Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Aa77zz (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well done. Aa77zz (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowmanradio's comments

[edit]
I'm not sure that you are right, Snow. The offical name is presumably that on the C of E website, and I used the same style for the St Nicholas, Blakeney FA without comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, the church's own website would normally be considered to be correct, I would have thought. If the church's own website repeatedly calls the church "St Helen's Church" then that is the name of the church, for me. Snowman (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See St. Helen's Church, where it is apparent that the usual format for Wiki articles appears to be "St. Helen's Church". I have invited participants of WP Anglicism to advance the discussion about the name of the church with an invitation on the Wiki Project's talk page. Snowman (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we will see what arises, it's of no great consequence since it's easy to move the page if required Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is one reply already on the WP talk page. User:Mangoe says this page should be moved (see his edit). Snowman (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, his statement plainly isn't correct, since the FA St Nicholas, Blakeney exists, but if you want to move it, go ahead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it. I have also asked about the name of "St Nicholas, Blakeney" article on the WP talk page. Snowman (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does this FAC talk page need moving as well? Snowman (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much point in that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, we do need the FAC page and the article name to be in sync when it comes to bot time but I'll take care of it -- hey, that's why they pay me the big bucks... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's normal for churches and other tall buildings to have lightning conductors, but they are not of historical or architectural interest, so the one at St Helen's isn't actually mentioned in any of the texts. I think it is probably something that would be assumed to be present, like gutters to carry away rain water Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The lightning rod was invented by Benjamin Franklin in Pennsylvania in 1749,[2]" according the the Wiki page on lightning conductors, so a lightning conductor would not have been normal for buildings before that era. What about the flagpole? Is the flagpole also a lightning rod? Snowman (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the lightning rod dates from the 15th century. It's likely that it is a nineteenth century addition, but I don't think that it will be possible to verify that. I doubt that the flagpole is part of the conductor, and I'm not sure if it's a permanent feature, but I'll have a look later today. Again, there is unlikely to be any documentation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the flagpole does appear to be permanent. The lightning conductor ends at the top of one of the stone pinnacles on the tower. Although the flagpole is slightly higher, its flammability and relative flimsiness presumably make it unsuitable as a terminal for the conductor. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why not include the flagpole and/or the lighting conductor in the article? Snowman (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no RS source and they are of no architectural or historical interest Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My plan shows a compass arrow, and the tower is clearly at the west end of the church Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you point it out, I see a small arrow in one of the images. I see that the main text has been updated to explain this. Snowman (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the reason for the strange alignment is unknown. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All I could find on the bells is in the article. I have the pre-2006 weight for the tenor bell, the largest, but it's been recast since then, so no guarantee it's the same. I'll add it anyway. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This webpage about the church has a different story about the bells than the Wiki article. This webpage may not meet the requirements for a source for the Wiki, but there may be some truth in the story there. Apparently, in 2006 two new bells were added so there are now ten. Why not phone up the church to find out about how may bells there are? Snowman (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed the new bells originally, since my most recent source says ten, fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Linked already in second paragraph of "Foundation to 1547". Nobody knows why the dedication (more than 1000 years ago) was to this saint, although her article say she may have been British originally Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that info is in the image file, but copied to caption as requested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if the Wiki article on Henry Hastings' is correct; however, it appears to say that some of the Hastings family are buried at the church. Is this relevant to the article? Snowman (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think considering the importance of the family to the locality, it's very relevant, especially in the case of Henry, a nationally important figure. I can't quite see what your getting at here, are you suggesting that their monuments shouldn't be discussed in the article? I've tried to concentrate only on those with the most significant memorials in the Hastings Chapel. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, my comment is somewhat confusing partly because I am not sure who "Huntingdon" is as featured in the Henry Hastings Wiki article. What I am confused about is where Henry Hastings is buried. The picutre of Henry Hastings and the text that says "coffins of the Hastings family" in this church article may suggest that Henry Hastings is one of the family who is buried there. Snowman (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've confirmed that Henry is buried in St Helen's. I don't think that there is a memorial, which would fit with his hard-line protestantism, which eschewed any showiness in religion. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The living at St Helen's Church was in the gift of Lilleshall Abbey until 1508". I do not understand this nor the Wikilink on "living" to "Benefice". Is the living in the pleural? Snowman (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a poor link, changed to advowson, which is what is meant Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is now; "The advowson of St Helen's Church was in the gift of Lilleshall Abbey until 1508, ...". I think that it would literally mean; "The advowson of St Helen's Church was a property right of Lilleshall Abbey until 1508, ..., but I might be wrong. I would think that advowson is jargon from ecclesiastical Law - it may need a foot note or short explanation in parenthesis. As I understand it from the OED, an advowson is a property right that can be used by the property owner. Snowman (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked a bit. The only practical consequence of the advowson here or elsewhere is the ability to nominate the incumbent; it's not ownership in the sense of being able to sell the church or similar Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and his countess, Catherine." The actual name on the toome is Katherin (see image at English churches). It looks like stonework at the area beyond the end of the word "Katherin" has been damaged, so it might say "Katherine" as in the text of this webpage. Why does the article say Catherine and not Katherin or Katherine? Snowman (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spelling was very variable then (for example Shakespeare signed his name with several different spellings, none of which corresponds to that in current use). The text continues "countisse of Huntyngdon". I used modern spelling, and Catherine is used by all my sources as the accepted version of her name. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the introduction; "...by William Hastings at the same time he erected his neighbouring castle.". This may be an oversimplification. There is an account of Hastings involvement at Ashby de la Zouch Castle wikipage, which says that he "started major works to extend and improve the castle" after it had been owned by the crown. Snowman (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's stretching it a bit to describe a fortified manor house as a castle, and neither Scott or Hillier describe the previous building as such. That looks like [[[WP:OR]] in the Wikipedia article to me, since their was no previous licence to crenellate. However, I've expanded the text a little to clarify Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

[edit]
  • I am sorely hoping that, upon reading the article, I find out that the church is home to a brood of rare Pyroclastic Pigeons or something like that. A Jimfbleak nomination without birds? *gasp* (yes, this is humor) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
well, I do have [[St Nicholas, Blakeney|previous form (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any bats? Snowman (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image comment: If WMUK is willing to fund it, I think Diliff would be willing to work his magic here as well (I mean, check out his work).
They look great, he's obviously got all the right gear Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardize: St Helens or St Helen's
fixed two Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Victorian?
done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead feels long, as this article is only 14k characters total
trimmed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • deanery of North West Leicestershire, the Diocese of Leicester - link on first mention?
Not sure what you are after, all are linked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has an entry in the Domesday Book, which suggests that it then had about 100 inhabitants, - year/century?
1086 added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • La Zouch - is there an article on the family?
No, there are a couple on individual members outside the period relevant to this article, and there is little I can find directly relevant to the church Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parts of the nave and chancel date from the fourteenth century, - perhaps make it clear that this is parts of the current nave
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tower, Hastings Chapel, and some buttresses and windows still remain from the fifteenth century works. - Is "works" adding anything? I think losing it would make the sentence clearer
removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Royalist stronghold - anything to link Royalist to?
linked cavalier Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Royal coat of arms - correct caps?
I think so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The increasing congregation - would including an adjective (large, for instance) work better?
added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • added during this period, along with the removal of the galleries, conversion of a chapel to a vestry and improvements to the Hastings Chapel. - to keep this parallel, I think "added during this period" needs to be changed to something with a noun
rejigged Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • to combat deathwatch beetle found during rewiring, - beetles? (not beatles, though it's the right period)
It's often used as singular when referring to an infestation, but pluralised anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • for weekly lectures in the church. - on what sorts of topics?
added "godly, orthodox and ordained minister", which I think gives the idea Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • to a John G. Shields and his descendants.- What does "a" add?
removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25 spent preaching and pamphleteering. - missing a word, I dare say
oops! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark James Monk, organist from 1880–1883, fulfilled the same role from 1890 at Truro Cathedral. - is this really worth its own paragraph? Anything more on other organists?
removed, although I have a long list of organists, none are notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • both Elizabeths - both named Elizabeth?
done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chancel east window - the eastern chancel window, the east chancel window? I think chancel goes after east
I'm not sure about that. the chancel has two windows to the east and south, changed to "chancel's east window" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • including a fine "The last Supper". - whose opinion?
removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Font?
done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nave is significantly wider than it is long, - any hard numbers?
Not really, although I could do an approxinmate measure from the plans if that's not too OR
  • Link Dorset?
done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, many thanks for review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support. I'd do a greater variety, but access to sources is a problem, so mainly birds and nature reserves with a few old buildings Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – A nice little article Jim, I enjoyed reading this. A lovely contrast to what we're used to from you. One thing caught my eye:
  • The church reportedly had much stained glass in 1622, but that disappeared during the Reformation." — Two things: Firstly, we have already spoke of this above and I feel it's a little repetitive; Secondly, and should you choose to retain the sentence, I think it needs a slight copy edit so we loose the "reportedly" and the "but that" insertions. Cassiantotalk 11:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for support and kind words. The first mention was the general point about the national legislation. I think we need to say that we know that St Helen's actually had stained glass originally (not necessarily the case) and it seems odd then to go straight on to the present windows without saying what happened to the old glass, even if it can be inferred from what's come before. I've tidied the sentence as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked just at the lead section with the idea of copyediting it, but found nothing to do. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Dank thanks for looking. Two other careful editors have been through the text, so I'm happy with how things stand at present, but thanks for the offer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Looks to me that Snowman's review is still in progress but, in the meantime, was there a source review above that I missed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I guess that like the rest of us Snowman is pretty busy at this time of year. User:Aa77zz usually has a look at my sources, see above, but I don't know if that counts as a formal review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that'll do actually. I did want to give Snowman every chance to continue but it's been almost three weeks since he last edited on WP. Perhaps another day or so and then we might just leave anything else to the talk page... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I agree. I don't think there are any real outstanding issues, although there are items where we appear to have agreed to differ Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. This is in very good shape. I have a handful of minor points.

  • I'm not sure if this is required for FA, but you might consider using the {{inflation}} template to give current equivalents for the costs of the various refurbishments.
I've had my fingers burned using that template with old buildings (Melbourne Castle, and it's not well suited to the uncertain 1878-80 data anyway. I'd rather leave as is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Hastings Chapel, chancel and clerestory are embattled": presumably "embattled" is an architectural term I'm not familiar with. Is there a suitable link?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'including "The last Supper"': surely "Last", not "last"? I'd have corrected this myself but it looks so odd I thought it might be deliberate.
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information about the association of the finger pillory with the church? E.g. was it used at the church, and is there any record of when it was last used? Or is it stored there more or less as a museum piece?
Unfortunately there appears to be nothing certain about its origins, although it is likely that it was used in the church for a period of time. Whether it was always there, or from another building or an outdoor location seems undocumented. I don't know when it was last used, unless you count the modern visitors who always have a go at self-pillorying Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are so many architectural elements mentioned that it would be nice to have a picture of that you might consider a gallery, in order to include more pictures. Not needed for FA, of course.
Good idea, but it will take a while since I lost most of my pics in a recent computer crash Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The church contains a pipe organ of uncertain date by Kirkland of Wakefield": some googling reveals that the firm was established in 1874, so it might be nice to mention that in a footnote to provide an earliest possible date for the organ.
Added 1893 (date of Wakefield branch) supported by existing ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The memorial to Theophilus Hastings, 9th Earl of Huntingdon": suggest "A memorial ..." since we've not mentioned the earl or his memorial before.
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if it's the same, but can "Ashby Grammar School" be linked to Ashby School?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The church is currently managed": suggest using "As of 2015".
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review and helpful comments, fairly painless Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good. Switched to support above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support by karanacs. Two nitpicks:

  • the lead says the fingor pillory is rare. The article does not explicitly say that.
  • Would it be possible to show the two pictures of the nave and chancel side-by-side, so readers can better appreciate the changes that were made in 1878? I would put the diagram of the layout in the place of the image in the history section

Karanacs (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review and support. I've implemented both your suggestions. I think 200px looks OK for the double image, but tweak if you disagree, thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/St_Helen%27s_Church,_Ashby-de-la-Zouch/archive1&oldid=645064844"