Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southeast England/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 Dabomb87 18:49, 18 June 2011 [1].
List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southeast England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because this is the fifth and last of a series of lists of churches vested in the Churches Conservation Trust. The other four lists are all FLs. In this list the first two paragraphs of the lead are identical to the others, and the format of the list is similar to the other lists. All the churches in the list are linked to articles. The text has been copyedited.Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from — Rod talk 19:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Apart from these it appears to be will written, illustrated and laid out. Columns sort as expected and it is well referenced.— Rod talk 15:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Thanks I can't see any other problems so I'm happy to support.— Rod talk 20:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support - I can't see any problems with this (hopefully Giants2008 got all of them!). I know other issues have been ironed out with previous nominations. It's well-written, attractive and useful, with good sources. Spot checking a few citations, I can see no problems with verifiability or too-close paraphrasing. I like how so many of them have very interesting little anecdotes & are not "just another church"! Some of the images (eg. St Andrew, Hove; St Peter, Preston Park) looked like they are floating in a little too much white space, but having experimented a bit in preview, I'm not sure there's any better way of sizing them. It's not a problem anyway. The only other tiny thing I thought was that you have one instance of "there are Perpendicular windows" (for St Michael, East Peckham). This could perhaps be "there are Perpendicular-style windows" purely to avoid confusing people who are not familiar with the term and might think it means perpendicular. It's already linked though, so, up to you.--BelovedFreak 10:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair comment; "-style" added. It's difficult to find a way of sizing the images to suit all, as different browsers and different screen sizes display them differently. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments I like. I've reviewed a couple of these before and find them interesting and informative, more power to you.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For lists of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in other regions see: --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, well like I said, I'm not sure you need them, but it's not a massive issue for me if they both stay. I prefer your idea of being as helpful as possible to the reader, so I think your suggestion above is the best solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - good job. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.