Talk:All Saints' Church, Southampton

All Saints' Church, Southampton has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 8, 2016. (Reviewed version).

A fact from All Saints' Church, Southampton appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 April 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that All Saints' Church, which was attended by Jane Austen when she lived in Southampton, was destroyed in the Second World War?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/All Saints' Church, Southampton.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:All Saints' Church, Southampton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Will review. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

We typically do not keep citations in the lead unless we make some significant claims. Make sure you have added them all in the main text (after the lead).
Done Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly expand the lead.
Done Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History

Henry II granted the land to the monks of St. Denys Priory Let this not look like a continuation from the lead. It would be good to say "the land on which the All Saints' Church stood" or the like.
Done Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Add a word on who Henry II was.
Done Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref. 1 can be added directly to the end of the 3rd line it is the source for.
Done Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in the Spring of 1792 Why is it "S" and not "s"?
Done Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and work begun on its replacement I would like to begin a new sentence from here.
Done Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The latter paras are short and many, giving the article a choppy look. Can we combine a few of them, or use subsections?
Done - I've made the "Interior" and "Exterior" sections into subsections of a new "Architecture" section which hopefully resolves this. Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is better, but the paras of "History" are also many and short. Can we have a similar solution for this? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I've combined some of the previous shorter paragraphs and added subheadings, breaking the history into centuries, which hopefully makes it easier to read. Waggers TALK 15:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and went on to become Bishop of Killaloe and Kilfenora, Bishop of Down and Connor and subsequently Bishop of Down, Connor and Dromore Appears irrelevant to the article.
Agreed; I've removed the extraneous detail. I'd like the article to be clear that the first rector of the church wasn't the same Richard Mant that became the bishop (as we have an article on the latter) so hopefully the revised sentence hits the right balance. Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The church building was subsequently demolished When?
Good question! It's proved difficult to find a source that provides an answer. Most sources state or imply the building was destroyed in the 1940 bombing but source #1 says "in August 1944, with demolition of the ruin awaited...", indicating there was more demolition to be done. But I can't find a source that states when that work was done. I've adjusted the sentence in the article to be clear it's the ruins that were demolished; most of the building was already gone.

Hmm... We should not venture into any guessing then. Can we add a few words so that it is clear to the reader that we do not know the date for certain? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Waggers TALK 15:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and despite being charred "and, despite being charred"
Done Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exterior

Who was Reveley?
Done - I've added a little more detail. Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because the north side adjoined the neighbouring buildings it had no windows "It had no windows because the north side adjoined the neighbouring buildings".
Done Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exterior and Interior sections could be combined into a single section, Architecture.
Done Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Is "find a grave" a reliable source?
Probably not; now replaced with a more reliable reference. Done Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Internet archive source is not properly formatted. Firstly, it is a journal volume, so use Template:Cite journal. You will need to specify the article you refer to and its page range in this.
Done Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Page range for ref. 11?
Done Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to fill more parameters of Template:Cite book for ref. 2
Done Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should be it. These done, I would be happy to promote this. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Sainsf, hopefully I've now address those to your satisfaction. Waggers TALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Waggers for your friendly response. We have only a little bit to go. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Sainsf, how does it look now? Waggers TALK 15:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Waggers! I believe the article is ready for promotion. Great job! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]