Talk:Our Lady and St Joseph Church, Heywood

Comments

This is a very nice article. I think it's your first, so many congratulations. I hope you don't have to wait too long to get it assessed. A few things to think about while you're waiting:

1. Image - I think articles about buildings are always improved by an image. Oddly, I can't find one on Commons, or on Geograph, which is the other go-to source for pictures. Assuming you live nearby, could you take one, upload it, and put it in the article?

2. Listed building - you mention it's a Grade II listed building in the lead, but not in the body of the article. As the lead should be a summary of the body, it's best to mention it in the body as well. Then, you could cite it with the source you've used, and take the cite out of the lead. Leads don't really need cites, except for big claims or direct quotes.

3. The layout and the referencing are good, well done! I see you mainly put your cites at the ends of paragraphs. That's fine, but often they are best placed right next to the specific point they are supporting. It just makes it easier for the reader.

4. "The church was solemnly opened by Bishop Turner" - what's the word "solemly" doing? As a general rule, less is almost always more on here.

5. Capital letters - you've got some capitalisation where you don't need it: "Baptistry, Entrance Porch, North transept, Organ loft, Mosaics".

6. "Romanesque and Byzantine style" - I wonder if Neo-Byzantine architecture would be a better bluelink for the second, as that's what it is.

7. Close paraphrasing - It can be tricky when writing about buildings, or anything else, to avoid paraphrasing the original sources too closely. As an example, you have "by Eric Newton and other members of the Ludwig Oppenheimer Ltd workshop" and the source has "by Eric Newton and other members of the Ludwig Oppenheimer Ltd workshop". This, [1] is a very useful tool that lets you check for copying, which is a big problem on Wikipedia. Your score is actually fine, but it does show where you might change the wording a bit.

8. I see your Source 7 says "so the architects were not W. T. Gunson & Sons, as surmised by The Buildings of England, on the basis of their having designed the school". This is interesting, as it's a rare instance, but not the only one, of Pevsner getting it wrong. The Buildings of England are great resources for buildings articles. Do you have the Manchester volume? A local library will. I might mention it, and I'll have a look in my Manchester Pevsner when I can access it.

9. Something's a bit messy with the coordinates in the infobox map, but I'm afraid I don't know how to sort it.

Good luck with the article and I look forward to seeing more. KJP1 (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and they are very helpful. I tried to do it as best I could so am glad it's been approved now.

I also looked for photographs but there don't seem to be any in wikimedia commons and I can't visit the church itself at the moment.

I've altered the lead as you suggest and included Grade II listing ref in the body instead.

I agree that solemnly doesn't make much sense so have deleted it.

You are quite right - neo-byzantine is a better term, so I changed the link.

I was stuck with that phrase on the mozaics - I've had another think about paraphrasing it a bit better and thanks for that link.

I remember looking at Pevsner a long time ago but haven't got a copy at the moment - will have a look at some point, thanks!

I tried several times to get the coordinates correct but I'm hoping someone else will know more than I do about it and can correct them!

Thanks again for your comments. Kody78 (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)