Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed churches in Lancashire/archive1
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Giants2008 03:07, 15 December 2012 [1].
Grade I listed churches in Lancashire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is the next in a series of lists, by county, of Grade I listed churches. It follows closely the format of three previous successful nominations, the last being Grade I listed churches in Merseyside. The text has been copyedited, and there is a linked article about every church in the list. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TBrandley 23:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support TBrandley 00:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks — especially for accepting our "differences". --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support a very good list indeed, and one which should be thought of as a good current template for such lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"Paley and Sharpe" perhaps use their full names on first use?
Only issue I could find, great work. NapHit (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you mean "Paley and Austin"? The problem with this is that, as the list is sortable, there is no "first use". And there were two Paleys, and two Austins at different times. The links take you to the complex but precise part of the Sharpe, Paley and Austin article, which deals with the relevant phases of the practice (which existed for more than 100 years!). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, as it seems this is more complex than it first appeared, I'm for it to remain this way. As see no other issues and believe the list meets the criteria, I Support. NapHit (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, as it seems this is more complex than it first appeared, I'm for it to remain this way. As see no other issues and believe the list meets the criteria, I Support. NapHit (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 20:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Excellent work, as ever. I note that some of the references have "." after them (e.g. "Hartwell & Pevsner 2009, pp. 332–334.") but your website ones don't (e.g. "Listed Buildings, English Heritage, retrieved 12 May 2012") because you're mixing families of citation templates. Changing {{citation}} to {{cite web}} will fix this, FYI, although it's not a very big deal. Otherwise only two comments, I think, both about the opening paragraph, strangely enough. I think it would be better to use an official copy of the 1972 Act at [3] rather than Wikisource, but unitary authorities post-date the 1972 Act anyway, so you might be better off finding a more modern source for the county history/structure; not terribly controversial but good to back it up. Secondly, and it might just be me, I still end up slightly puzzled as to whether this is a list of churches in the non-metropolitan county, or the ceremonial county.... BencherliteTalk 10:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Grade I support. You make it look so easy, but an awful lot of work has clearly gone into all of this. BencherliteTalk 20:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An interesting, well researched and comprehensive list and the perfect complement to other Lists of Grade I listed churches.J3Mrs (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment Another good example of these county-based lists, which have established a clear and user-friendly "house style". I concur with the supporting comments above, but just a few small observations:
|
- Support based on these small changes and the one below. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lead says "and a part of West Yorkshire was transferred into the county" – West Yorkshire did not exist until 1974 so nothing could be transferred, probably you should refer to the West Riding of Yorkshire which existed before 1974. Keith D (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice one! Thanks; corrected. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support' Thanks for the change. Look forward to some more of these lists. Keith D (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice one! Thanks; corrected. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.