Talk:All Saints' Church, Runcorn/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 16:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I will review.

Lead

• I would link Early English Gothic in full - I wasn't sure what the term meant. Also the "style" in the infobox says Gothic Revival architecture. I would go with one or the other.

• The normal convention in writing architectural material is to just state "Early English" (or "Decorated" or "Perpendicular") without "Gothic". The blue link is there for anyone who doesn't know what it means. But I have added "Early English" under "Gothic Revival" in the infobox to show that it is a subgroup. PIV

• What exactly is a "home group"? We have an article cell group, but I'm not entirely sure that's the same thing.
• Can you explain what a "community project" is?

• To discuss the last two points: in the past I've been criticised for not having a Present day section, the reviewer saying something like "a church is not just a building, but a living community of active worshippers" and that something should be included relating to this. The available information for this particular church is sparse, and this is one reason that I have not taken the article to GAN earlier (but I decided to bite the bullet now). All we have is the church's website, a recent innovation, that includes little more than is in Ref 21. So all I know is what they say. I would guess that a home group is a group of Christians meeting at homes during the week to discuss and worship in a more informal and intimate setting than the church (but I can't say that in the article, can I?). Similarly a community project must be a project for doing good things in the community, and they happen to entitle it "Open Door", but they do not tell us what it is and what they do. I could omit the Present day section completely; should I? I'm sure that you've noticed that EC expressed similar concerns in his peer review. This may not be particularly satisfying to academics, but to include what is there may be of some benefit to the general reader. PIV

The Evangelical Alliance website has a page for home group resources, which is as good a broad definition I could find. I think a wikilink to home group should suffice for the minute.

I'm not sure about removing "Present Day" but perhaps rename this section to "Services". You need the information in the body because it's referenced in the lead. I don't generally buy any arguments that say "Oh you must have 'x' and you must have 'y'" unless it's obvious that not having 'x' and 'y' will be a detriment to the reader. We should note that the church is active, but I would expect the typical reader looking at this article to be more interested in the history and architecture - and in any case, that is the area that the sources focus on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I note that you have linked "home group". I'm not sure that the linked article actually refers to what goes on in Runcorn, but who knows? "Services" as a title will not do because it also includes info about its governance, etc. Let's leave it as it is. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• When I have linked "listed building", I've gone to Listed building#England and Wales

• Done. PIV

• The sentences in the last paragraph are a bit short - could these be rearranged?

• Merged the first two; the last sentence needs to stand alone. Does this work? PIV

Yes, that looks good now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• The infobox says the church was designated on 7 December 1965 - where's the source for this? (1965 doesn't appear anywhere else in the article)

• Sorry, I missed that in the body of the article, and I've added it in the Appraisal section. PIV

History

• "Judging by the Early English style of architecture, the" - don't need "the"

• I agree "the" is wrong; changed it to "its". PIV

• "Also in the 14th century" ... we already know we're talking about the 14th century, so "At the same time" would suffice

• We do not know that it was "at the same time" and was probably at some other time during the century. So I've changed it to "During the same century". PIV

Okay, that's good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• "A major item of the church furniture was a "magnificent" - "magnificent" according to whom?

• That's the word used in the source; that's why I've placed it in quotes, and added an "extra" reference at the end of the sentence. Or I could change it to "Fine" (without quotes) and remove the ref, but that takes away some of the impact. Your thoughts? PIV

I'd just get rid of "magnificent" altogether. H.F. Starkey may be passionate about the church's history and architecture, but we need to keep a neutral point of view. Just saying it has a rood screen will be enough for the reader to understand. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"Magnificent" and extra ref deleted. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• "It was therefore extended by" - don't need "therefore"

• Deleted. PIV

• "by adding galleries to this aisle and to the west end" - don't need "aisle" as we can tell that from earlier context

• Replaced by "it". PIV

• "By December of that year architectural reports had been been obtained from Scott and Moffatt" - it's not immediately obvious that we're talking about the partnership between George Gilbert Scott and William Bonython Moffatt

• Addition made to clarify. PIV

• "The new church was designed by Anthony Salvin." - we've been introduced to him in the previous paragraph, so per WP:LASTNAME, just "Salvin" will do here.

• Done. PIV

• There are some other facts in The history of the county palatine of Chester, such as the patronage to Christ Church, Oxford

• Thanks for the source, but it is dated 1823 and relates to the "old" church, and I think we have enough about that already. The patronage is included in the Present day section, and I have added links to emphasise this. PIV

• This source states a papal bull issued by Pope Boniface IX was discovered in the churchyard in 1910 - that might be worth putting in somewhere.

• Congratulations on finding this source. I think that to mention the fact of the finding of the bulla would also require a discussion of its significance, which is beyond my ability, and which IMO would be beyond what is required at GA (maybe for FA, when a number of other facts could be included, like the selling of the altar from the old church and its present position in a Methodist chapel in Widnes!). Perhaps enough is enough. PIV

I think just mentioning that the bulla was discovered in the churchyard will suffice. Err on the side of inclusion - it's in a source, it's a straight fact, so there's no reason not to include it as part of the history. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Added. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Architecture

• "at the southwest corner of the nave" - I would try and move this earlier in the sentence, to avoid saying "nave" several times

• "of the nave" deleted - I think it still makes sense. PIV

• A picture of the interior would help, but we can't use what we don't have

• Agree, but the only image I can find of the interior is a postcard, and I am unsure of its copyright status. My own photographic ability does not rise to church interiors. PIV

Okay. Not a problem for a GA in any case.

• "In addition there was a royal coat of arms of George III" - where is it now?

• Text revised. Does this make sense, or is there too much repetition? PUV

That's okay. If all we know is that there was a coat of arms but it's since been removed, that's all we can say.

• Is Sir Richard Brooke anything to do with the Brooke baronets?

• Yes. I've added a link to them in the lead, which I hope suffices. PIV

Yes, that's fine. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Why is the maker of the organ "unknown"? Is that because the records have been lost, or no source thought it important to mention? I would probably reduce this to "the organ was installed in 1908 and carries a plate saying it was "assisted by Andrew Carnegie".

• The source always states the name of the maker if it is known (I think it is the most authoritative source for pipe organs), and I have not been able to find the name of the maker from any other source. There is usually a plaque or something similar on the organ itself, and the source mentions the Carnegie plaque, but not one referring to a maker. I've used your suggestion (more or less). PIV

• Just a quick note about bells (having done the odd quarter peal myself), I think records on certificates for peals normally mention the weight and size of the tenor (that's bell 8 in the source given), so that might be worth working into this section.

• I haven't done this previously and am not sure of the convention. I've added the weight and the diameter; is that done correctly? Do we also need the pitch? PIV

That looks fine. I think some campanology records include the pitch, but I don't think it matters too much as long as the bells are all in tune with each other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Present day

• Can you explain a bit more about what "Open Door" is?

• No. See my comments above.

Images

• No problems with copyrights. Nice to see that you took the contemporary photos yourself, too.

Summary

• I don't think there are any significant problems in this meeting the GA criteria, so I'll put the review on hold pending minor improvements. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Response

• Many thanks for the review and your suggestions. I have responded to some of the points, and will complete it later. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Now tried to cover all points. What next? And thanks again; all very stimulating. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a few replies to your replies. The only other concern I have is that I can't check the BNA citations as I don't have a subscription, though I have added myself to the waiting list. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I've dealt with the points that need attention. And I can confirm that the BNA citations are correct!! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well I think all issues have addressed one way or the other, so I'll pass the article. Well done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)