Talk:St Fflewin's Church, Llanfflewin

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:St Fflewin's Church, Llanfflewin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am undertaking a Good Article review of this article. While I am often able to complete an initial review within a few hours, I like to leave myself open to taking a longer time (maybe days) if other commitments intervene, so please be patient! I will post here and at the nominator's talk page when the initial review is complete and I am ready for responses. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Look forward to your thoughts. If you want some comparisons, then the nine previous GAs in the series are listed here. Bencherlite^Talk 20:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry for the delay, I will get the initial review up today. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

The prose is generally clear and concise, and spelling and grammar are fine, but there are some minor issues:

• (Resolved - see discussion below) - General - I appreciate you have mentioned that the church is used by the Church in Wales, but as someone who didn't know what the Church In Wales was before clicking the link, it would be helpful if you could work the word "Anglican" into the article somewhere.
• (Resolved - see discussion below) - History and location - "judiciously" - I appreciate the caution you have used to source this word, but even with the sourcing I'm not clear what it adds to the article, or even what the 2009 guide was intending to convey by using it. What does it mean that it was partially rebuilt "judiciously"?
• (Resolved - see discussion below) - History and location - "one of his other Anglesey churches." In what sense were they "his"? Did he build them? Own them? Administer them? Just like them a lot?
• (Resolved - see discussion below) - Lead / history and location / architecture and fittings - "no features dating from before the 18th century, although the church has a font from the 14th or 15th century and part of an inscribed medieval gravestone has been reused in a window sill." I don't understand how it can have no features from before the 18th century, but have a font from the 14th century. Is this a special meaning of "features" that I am not privy to? This apparent contradiction is repeated in more detail in the main body of the article, without any apparent clarification.
• (Resolved - see discussion below) - Architecture and fittings - Why does "HIC IACET MADOCUS" appear within <code></code> tags? I understand it's Latin but my belief was that foreign language quotes should be presented in italics.
• (Resolved - see discussion below) - Architecture and fittings - You have quotes around "roughly dressed". The sentence is sourced to two different references, so it's not clear which supports the quote (this can be fixed by adding the quoted sentence to the relevant footnote). Also direct quotes require in-text attribution (eg "The church has what Richard Haslam describes as a "roughly dressed" font.") - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• (Resolved - see discussion below) - Assessment - "The church is a Grade II listed building." Who by? Who listed it? What status does this listing have (listed by church fans & known only to fans, or government heritage listing having legislative force over redevelopment plans)?

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

The article complies with the Manual of Style for lead sections.

• Comment (not necessary to pass GA) - The lead section does not very well explain why the church is notable (or at least more notable than rural churches generally). It could use improvement to better highlight why this church deserves an encyclopaedic article.

The article complies with the Manual of Style for layout.

The article has several problems under the Manual of Style for words to watch, as follows:

• (Resolved - see discussion below) - "still used" (vague chronological reference) - As of when? Since when?
• (Resolved - see discussion below) - "It is said" (unsourced attribution) - Who said it? When? Why don't we trust it enough to present the claim without q:ualification? (There are multiple instances of this.)
• (Resolved - see discussion below) - "established a Christian site here in 630" (vague geographical reference) Where is "here"? Replace with a precise description of the location.
• (Resolved - see discussion below) - "It is thought to be" (unsourced attribution) Thought by whom? Why don't we trust it enough to present the claim without qualification? (There are multiple instances of this.)
• (Resolved - see discussion below) - "The rector is" (vague chronological reference) - Presumably the rector is not immortal, so this needs an "As of (year)" so that it is clear when the article may need to be updated. Alternatively (and better) you could just insert the date he was installed as rector.

The criteria for fiction and list incorporation do not apply to this article.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

All sources appear in a dedicated and labelled section.

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

As far as I can tell all statements and quotations are sourced to reliable sources through inline citations (subject to my concerns about "it is said" and "it is thought to be" under "words to watch" above).

(c) it contains no original research.

There is no evidence of original research in this article.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

This article addresses all the areas I would expect for an article of this sort.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The article does not enter an inappropriate level of detail.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.


I am not aware of any relevant viewpoints not covered by this article. There is no evidence of bias in the article.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   Prior to this GA the article has only had one contributor, and thus is not the subject of any current disputes or edit wars.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

All images appear to be appropriately tagged and licensed.

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

All images are relevant to the article and appropriately captioned.

Overview - Looks suitable to be promoted to a Good Article, pending the issues identified under criterion 1 being addressed. I will place the review on hold. Leave me a message on my talk page when you believe you have addressed these issues. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Overview 2 - The article in my opinion now satisfies all the Good Article criteria and I am accordingly listing it as a Good Article. Thank you for your patience and cooperation and congratulations on creating a Good Article! - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for your thorough review. I don't agree with all the changes suggested or points made, as you'll see, but some are useful improvements. Going through your list:

• Anglican - disagree with you here (an unfortunate start). If people want to find out what branch of Christianity the CinW is, they can click the link (which is what it is there for). Adding an extra phrase simply to introduce the term "Anglican" somewhere into the article somewhere is unnecessary fluff.

• I'm going to press on this one. Wiklinking isn't a substitute for clarity of writing. The Church In Wales is not a commonly known organisation outside of Wales, and it's not immediately clear that it's even a religious body (as opposed to, say, a civil body dedicated to the preservation of historic churches). If you don't want to say Anglican, then possibly insert that it's still being used as a place of worship (as opposed to merely "still in use"). - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• "A civil body dedicated to the preservation of historic churches"? Now you seem to be coming up with ridiculous examples to try to find confusion where there is none. I say that it is a church, I say that it's still in use, I say who the rector is, which diocese it's in... it's clear enough, surely? Bencherlite^Talk 22:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Would you object to me making an edit to the article to show how the article could be improved through this clarification? - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't own it, so go ahead. Bencherlite^Talk 23:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• added "for worship" to "in use / used", which I hope meets you halfway at least. Bencherlite^Talk 23:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Your change to "for worship" is probably sufficient for GA, and I'll tick this point accordingly. I'd urge you to consider expanding this out beyond GA, though. The current usage of the church is arguably its most relevant feature to most audiences, and as such you could stand to have a much larger amount of detail than you currently have without straying into inappropriate trivia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Judiciously - as opposed to unjudicious rebuilding, of course... I've added a note to explain further, I hope.

• The note is sufficient to pass GA. Beyond GA, I'd still recommend rephrasing this sentence generally so that you don't have to rely on the note - there's no pressing reason that the note can't be worked into the text proper. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• His churches - I would have thought that, when talking about a rector, "his churches" obviously means churches for which he had responsibility, rather than building or ownership (and since when did "his" possibly mean "like them a lot"?), but I've amended anyway.

• Thank you. I write articles on religious figures, and it wasn't clear to me, so it's reasonable to assume it wouldn't be clear to a completely uninitiated reader either. The new phrasing is a big improvement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• No dateable features etc - the distinction is between the building (the structure) and its contents. Just because it has a 14th-century font doesn't make it a 14th-century structure, of course. The Cadw source says (as you must have seen) "The present church is therefore probably built upon Medieval foundations, though the current building contains no dateable features earlier than late C18 and was extensively restored in the early 1930s." So I've followed that. To try and make the point clearer, I've added the word "structural" to the text in the lead and body.

• The addition of "structural" solves the contradiction, thank you. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hic iacet - changed to italics

• Thank you! - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Roughly dressed - reference moved up to the quotation. MOS:QUOTE (which is not part of the good article criteria, anyway) does not require the author(s) of a two-word description to be identified in the text; a footnote is sufficient.

• Thank you, the moved reference solves the problem to my satisfaction. Criterion 2(b) below requires all quotations to be treated in a manner complying with our citation guidelines for quotes. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• 2(b), though, does not require the author of a two-word quote to be identified either. Bencherlite^Talk 22:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Grade II listed - added a fuller explanation

• Thank you, these changes are fine. - 22:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Saying "the church is still used" (which was your change to the wording, of course) does not offend against WP:DATED because it is not a statement that will date quickly. However, I have added an "as of" to the current rector. The sources don't say when he was appointed.

• That should be fine, thank you. "Still used" is indeed a statement that will date quickly (as evidenced by the necessity of the word "still") in that it can potentially change overnight and without widely-known public warning. The wording before I changed it was more problematic. Examples of statements that will not date quickly include "K2 is the highest mountain on Earth," "Canberra is the capital of Australia," and "American currently uses the same calendar as the United Kingdom." This is covered under WP:ASOF, which is incorporated in the Words to Watch guideline. It is appropriate to use "as of" for any information intended to represent current, rather than historical, truth. But it does not seem sufficiently crucial to block a GA over, so I'll pass on this one. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• WP:WEASEL says "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed." The article does this - note 2 gives the details in full, each attributed. The sources about St Fflewin say that he was active in the 6th century, which make it unlikely but not impossible that he was establishing churches as late in the 7th century as 630. (However, as stating that would be original research, I've simply presented the facts and let others make up their own minds what to make it). None of the other three sources about the foundation of the church give sources for their dating, so I have added to note 2 that no further details are given. I'm reluctant to state as unchallengeable fact something with these problems, hence my "it is said" and detailed, referenced, note. How would you do it?

• Some possible ways to change this include, "Local tradition holds that St Fflewin...", and then have a citation at the end of the sentence to a reliable source on local tradition. Or "According to Samuel Lewis in his 1849 Topographical Dictionary of Wales, St Fflewin...". Or, alternatively, if you don't think there's any doubt about the historical truth of this, just take out "It is said", so that it reads, "St Fflewin established a Christian site at the current location of the church..." I mean, for this to be verifiable, and thereby able to be included in the article, you must be able to trace it to a named source. If you need to qualify that source's assertion, you'll need to say who they are in the text so we understand that, and if you don't need to qualify it then take out the qualifying "it is said". - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'll have a quick think about this. Bencherlite^Talk 23:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• How's it looking now? I still think that the basic problem here is that he can't really be a 6th-century saint (and the son of someone from the 5th century) and also a church founder in 630, short of incredible old age (which is probably unlikely at that time), which is why I have a problem with the dates here, but as that's what the sources say, who am I to disagree? Bencherlite^Talk 23:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Vastly improved, thank you! The current version is supported by the sources and it's incumbent on anyone who disagrees to find contradictory sources. I am not personally aware of any. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• here in 630 - I would have thought "here" was clear from context, but altered anyway.

• Fixed, thank you. Prior to the "here" the article had not referenced a specific location, so it was as problematic as using "he" before explaining who "he" might be. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• thought to be - the one example was not unsourced, see the reference attached to it, but removed anyway as I don't have a more modern source to prove this.

• The issue with "thought to be" is not just the sourcing, but that it's a qualification. If X says Y is true, normally the article would just say "Y is true". If you need to phrase it as "X thinks Y is true," then you're qualifying the statement "Y is true" - ie, saying that not everyone agrees Y is true. When you do that, you need to explain WHY we might be suspicious of the statement Y is true, which, to start with, requires saying in the text who says Y is true (so you can then explain why they might be wrong). As an example, you wouldn't expect the article on Gandhi to say "Samuel Lewis thinks Gandhi was male," because it immediately makes you think, "Well, what does everyone else think, then?" - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, but the source itself qualified the statement so I did too. Bencherlite^Talk 23:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bencherlite^Talk 15:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)