Jump to content

Talk:Leicester Abbey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateLeicester Abbey is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleLeicester Abbey 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 11, 2013Good article nomineeListed
July 23, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 25, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after Cardinal Thomas Wolsey (pictured) died at Leicester Abbey in 1530, his body was put on display so it could be viewed by the people of Leicester?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Untitled

[edit]

DYK: 1102 Views (4684 for Cardinal Wolsey)

[edit]
Issue Resolved --Rushton2010 (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Much seems to be a direct copy and paste from http://semper-eadem.tripod.com/Articles/22.htm
Rushton2010 (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's a copyright violation. Using archive.org the earliest version of http://semper-eadem.tripod.com/Articles/22.htm I can find dates to 31 October 2003. The first edits of the Wikipedia article (February 2004) show that it was pretty much identical to the semper-eadem page. Since then, the Wikipedia article has been modified, but not so much that the original material doesn't still show through (as demonstrated by the fact you were able to catch a nine-year-old copyright violation). Rather than reworking the current article, I'll put together a new draft, delete this one, and paste it in. I'll aim to do that either this evening or tomorrow. Good work finding the problem.
It's possible TJWUK01 (talk · contribs), who wrote this article in 2004 may be responsible for other copyright violations. Fortunately they made only a few edits so it shouldn't be too arduous to check them all. Nev1 (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Leicester Abbey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sabrebd (talk · contribs) 11:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be starting a review over the weekend. Congratulations on the work on this article so far. Initial thoughts are that the article looks well sourced and well written, but has some formatting issues (unnecessary bold, sandwiching of text between images, titles in caps that should not be and use of the adjective hyphen in titles where there is no noun.) A question that also springs to mind is that usually monastic houses are reviewed under Art and architecture - is there some reason that this is under World history? More to follow.--SabreBD (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, its the first time I have submitted an article for review. I picked world history basically because it was the closest thing I could find that seemed to fit. I was thinking of it along the lines of it as a historical site and hadn't considered architecture (probably because its in ruins). Anyway, I shall remember to submit monasteries to art and architecture in future.
As I say, it is the first I have submitted for review. I have basically run out of information to add to the article and am now looking for how to improve it further to take it up to that "Good" standard. I'm not expecting it to be at the required standard right now, but have seen how other reviews have basically been in depth, constructive ideas on how to improve the articles and get it to that "good" standard. So that's what I'm really hoping for.
Many thanks. Rushton2010 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a hard an fast rule, more custom and practice. In any case it does not really matter as the reviewer can choose where to add an article that passes. I will try to be as helpful as I can. There are some things that are necessary for the GA status, but I will try to suggest anything else that will also improve the article.--SabreBD (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. Thank you Rushton2010 (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are all fine with the images and captions now.--SabreBD (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've added another little section ("The abbey's layout") and I've added a plan of the abbey. I made it myself so hopefully it shouldn't have any issues. Sorry/Thanks again --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. I held off completing the review as I could see you were still adding to the article. I should be able to finish soon. It looks good by the way and was something I was going to suggest for coverage.--SabreBD (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work my way through you're suggestions. Hope it's ok, I'm crossing out the things as I do them just to make it easier to see what Iv'e got left to do. Thanks again --Rushton2010 (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be best not to use the crossing out, as it looks like I have withdrawn the statements (as a rule its not normal on Wikipedia to strike out another editor's comments). Instead you could use the {{Done}} template after each section.--SabreBD (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Things that need fixing for GA

[edit]
  • Which Earl of Lancaster's troops attacked and which Earl of Huntington bought the grounds? It would be good to link directly if they have an article.
Sorry for the delay -busy few days. I've added links for the individual pages for the Earl of Lancaster, Earl of Huntingdon and the Marquess of Northampton. --Rushton2010 (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • The lede is a bit short for an article of this length. The MOS recommends two or three paragraphs for an article of this size. That is not a hard and fast rule, but I think it needs a bit more of a summary of the whole article, such as the historical events, especially since some sections have been added.--SabreBD (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've extended; let me know what you think. --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • There is a bit of inconsistency in the references. Sometimes retrieved is after a full stop and sometimes after a comma. Nicols volume two is in Arabic and then Roman numerals. More importantly, some references given here do not link to the reference but another source (British History Online): if its taken from a secondary source the one actually used should be the one consulted. The Calender of Papal Letters and Visitations of Religious Houses in the Dioc. of Linc are given in short title form, but there is no full version. This may be the same problem as before. I also believe that with JSTOR articles the reference should tell the reader that it is subscription only, but I cannot track down the link at the moment.--SabreBD (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've redone the whole reference section so that it is all in the single reference style.--Rushton2010 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]

Suggestions for improvement

[edit]

I moved the pics around and reformatted to do my best to get them to copy with WP:IMAGES. Basically there is a need to avoid sandwiching text between images, the Cardinal needs to be on the right so that his eyes face the text and "size forcing" is discouraged. However, long images can be given the parameter "upright", so that they display in a reasonable size. It seem to me that there is room for another pic in the after dissolution section and there are several available on Commons here. The 1906 photograph of Cavendish House is worth considering, but perhaps one of the pics of Abbot Penny's Wall might also be useful, it is after all what most of those passing will see (it is my abiding memory of the place). I also notice there is a very good panorama of the ruins and that could fit in nicely between sections (I can do this if it helps - I have the code handy). It would be a bit of shame not to use this as it would probably look quite impressive. So some things to think about here.--SabreBD (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]

I've added the picture of Abbot Penny's Wall. I agree its something more people will probably recognise. I will have a play and see if the old photograph of Cavendish House can be fit in without squashing any text too.
I would be very grateful if you could add the panorama. I have seen them used in other articles but I'm afraid I do not know how to add them myself. Thank you again --Rushton2010 (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I should also be able to finish the review this weekend.--SabreBD (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may now be room for one more picture in the Cavendish House section, but I am not sure what it is, since another house picture would achieve little.--SabreBD (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've jiggled them around a little bit and added a final photo into the extra space --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • Working towards FA status, captions will need alternative text. Done Categories should be in alphabetical order. Done The main thing that might be asked for is a bit more historical context about monasticism, religious orders, Dissolution and the new aristocracy taking over. I don't think this is necessary for GA, but it is something to consider for the future.--SabreBD (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leicester Abbey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Leicester Abbey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leicester Abbey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leicester_Abbey&oldid=1208137845"