Talk:St John's Church, Manchester

Images

I'm not good when it comes to image copyrights etc. Can we upload and use photo of the memorial shown here? How do we stand re: the one that is currently shown in External Links (I know it says (c) Manchester Libraries but have the feeling that the WMF doesn't care less if it was taken before 1923). - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

On the geograph's picture page, just under the picture, is a link for using their images. This is the link for uploading the cross picture, you need to scroll down to a pink bar for the commons. I don't upload anything to the commons for reasons I won't go into but have been told its easy. I don't know about old pictures. J3Mrs (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Layout

@J3Mrs: you were right about the layout changes being better than my half-cocked initial attempt but I'm mystified by some of your recent sentences moves. I've moved one bit back but what has Turner's sketch got to do with "Origins"? He was sketching the structure of the church 60/70 years after it was built, which is why I put the statement in the Structure section. Am I missing something? - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That sentence about Turner really belonged in History, it's nothing to do with the structure, perhaps there's a better place but I can't see it at the minute. I'll think on it. J3Mrs (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about peel. (blushing again) How about a subheading Graveyard in the structure section where they are usually mentioned to gather all the info about burials? J3Mrs (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'l have a think about the grouping but I really do disagree about the Turner thing and maybe we should ping some other people if they do not come here of their own accord. If you group all of the burial stuff together then you'll leave the marriage stuff orphaned. At least nowadays, most people associate churches with BMDs rather than regular worship, so it seemed better to group thoswe and other functions (the education etc) together. - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

To be honest the Turner sentence is an orphan, as the article stands it doesn't fit anywhere. Moving the burials would leave marriages and Sunday Schools. J3Mrs (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I didn't mention the Turner thing when I first saw it. Arguably, it borders on trivia but I'm not too fussed either way about its inclusion. At worst (or best ...), it could go in External links or just maybe could be included as an image and let the caption tell the story. The schools thing is going to be expanded, eg: The Guardian, 5 May 1910, p. 9. It might even end up being expanded to the point of being yet another fork. - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Citevar

We seem to be mixing citation styles now - WP:CITEVAR. I just carried on with things as Dr Blofeld had begun them, both here (via the fork) and at the Gardens article. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem I'll revert it, I don't know how to add more than one page using the other way. J3Mrs (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes you'd have to restate the citation with an alternate |page but in this instance, with the point being such a small thing, I have an idea. Give me a couple of minutes. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that Sitush I had to go on Sunday and only just got back. 18:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Roof collapse

There is no doubt that the roof collapsed in 1924: we have a source and there are photos of it online at Manchester Libraries. However, I'm blowed if I can find anything more than the cited source. I've tried searching the online archives of The Manchester Guardian, The Observer and The Times, as well as the numerous newspapers at British Newspapers Online. I can't believe that this was unreported, especially since it appears to have caused the church to close for two years, so I'm appealing for someone to do some digging themselves, perhaps including a check of the stuff that I've already attempted. Ta. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 11:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 11:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

After a first read-through I find one question stridently clamouring to be answered: who was the architect? Do we not know, or have you mentioned it and I've missed it? – Tim riley talk 15:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have searched all over but have never been able to find it. From contemporary newspapers (eg: Manchester Mercury in the 1760s) right the way through to pretty recent books on Mancunian architecture, it always draws a blank. They repeatedly refer to Byrom but not to the designer. Unless the information is contained in the Act of Parliament, I don't think we're going to get it. The situation applies to a fair few of the other churches built in Manchester around this time. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. You can't find what isn't there. But if I were you I'd say in the text that though the local paper and other contemporary and later sources mention Byrom, none of them names his architect. I have no other reservations about the content of the article. A few minor drafting points you might want to consider:

• Structure
  • "The church has been described as the first significant building" – what did it signify? Perhaps "major" or "important" would be more accurate here.
    • The source (p. 253) says "the first major Manchester building in the Gothic Revivial style". That is difficult to paraphrase and I probably used "significant" in an attempt to avoid copyvio. Perhaps it would be better to use a quotation? - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "manufactured by Lester and Pack" – piped, I see, to the Whitechapel Bell Foundry. For what it's worth I have certainly heard of the latter but not of Lester and Pack, and I'm not sure why you've piped it.
    • The source doesn't mention Whitechapel Bell Foundry; it says Lester & Pack. I don't think I linked that but, obviously, someone has. The chances of there being another partnership of bell founders bearing the same name seems remote. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The roof collapsed in 1924 … Among people who were commemorated in its windows" – I imagine the windows were those of the church rather than of its roof.
    • Yes. Fixed, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• "Windows by William Peckitt were moved to St Ann's Church in the city" – someone (not me) has tagged this with "when", which is a fair question, but if you can't answer it I don't think it is important enough to impede promotion of the article.
  • • That was an aide memoire tag added by me. I've not been able to ascertain the date, so I'll remove it. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Functions
  • "a venue for such things" – strange way of putting it. Why not "a venue for weddings"? And I think we really need a citation for this, otherwise it looks like OR speculation.
    • Yes, a very weird phrase! I have fixed it. The citations are there, so are you suggesting that the specific statement be cited? If so, we'll end up with the same source cited twice. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't press the point. Tim riley talk 17:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Second para: you have "claimed" twice in quick succession. I'd make the first one "according to".
    • Good spot. I've changed it but in a different way. I'm not really very fond of "claimed" anyway because it often sounds a bit weasel-y. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Clergy
  • "the first Sunday school" – the blue link here should be moved to the first mention, in the second para of the preceding section.
    • Yes, per WP:OVERLINK. Done, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Demise
  • "William Marsden, who founded the concept of a half-day holiday" – I rather doubt that it can be confidently asserted that nobody before Marsden had ever come up with the idea. I think you'd be safer to say "pioneered".
    • Yes, fine. Done that. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Tim riley talk 14:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Tim, do you have any suggestions regarding phrasing for the architect research that has turned up a blank? I'm always concerned about saying "we've looked and the information isn't there" (paraphrase) in an article because it seems to draw a conclusion based, fundamentally, on a synthesis of what we have looked at. It is always just possible that the information does exist and that the fault lies with our research. Well, my research in this case.

Disproving a negative is, as always, tricky. What about, "Although contemporary sources such as The Manchester Mercury name Byrom as the sponsor of the building, they do not identify his architect." which I think accurately paraphrases your comment near the top of this page. It does not – nor should it – say unequivocally that no such statement exists, but it mentions one major source by name and others more generally, all of which you have researched. I think that puts your cards on the table fair and square (how my clichés proliferate!) and explains to the reader why a piece of information he or she might expect is not there. Yes, I've been getting WP error messages too. A temporary problem, let us hope. – Tim riley talk 15:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the other comments. I'll review them later when the Wiki technical problems have gone away. I'm receiving all sorts of errors at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've now replied to your various comments above. Most are simple "dones" but there are one or two queries. I've just noticed that we've recently developed a lot of overlinks. Dr Blofeld expanded the lead and in doing so created a whole new set of links. Some people like to see things linked in both the lead and the body but I've never been keen on it; it just seems like more clutter to me, and is definitely so in the edit view. Which would you prefer? - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

My practice is the same as Dr B's, but the Manual of Style is quite clear that you can but don't have to repeat a link in the main text if it's already in the lead. It really is your call. Now you make me think about it, I rather incline to your view, though old habits die hard (another one for the Riley cliché counter!). But enough of this. Stand back and give me room to cut the ribbon:

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I enjoyed reviewing this, and I hope we can look forward to more from the same source. – Tim riley talk 17:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)