Talk:St Mary's Church, Hartwell
Appearance
A fact from St Mary's Church, Hartwell appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 May 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Roofless?
[edit]The building doesn't appear to be roofless looking at the picture (lnked from the article here) or at the satellite image in Google maps. Bagunceiro (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Googlemaps also suggests that both towers are still in place. 137.222.70.69 (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Nore does it appear the West tower has been removed.208.93.129.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC).
- The relevant ref says "Parish church, now redundant and roofless. 1753-5 by Henry Keene in Gothic Revival style, designed as a feature in the park of Hartwell House. Ashlar stone, octagonal in plan with towers at East and West, the latter now removed. Battlemented parapet and moulded cornice, moulded string below attic quatrefoil windows. Main windows 3-light with Y tracery and crocketted ogee hoods. Rose windows to N. and S. bays and to E. side of tower which has openwork parapet and pinnacles. Interior now a ruin with slight evidence of former plaster fan vaulted ceiling." (My bolding.)
It's the official English Heritage listing citation, so who am I to argue against it? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- The listing is from 1967, and has not been amended since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.176.172 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Does that suggest it has been restored, perhaps? Bagunceiro (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- The more recent source in the 1st footnote calls the church a "restored shell". The recent overhead photographs show a roof, the underside of which is shown in a photograph here. [1] (the same photo linked above here) 24.197.176.172 (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- It also says it has two towers (as the satellite imagery would also suggest). Bagunceiro (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- The more recent source in the 1st footnote calls the church a "restored shell". The recent overhead photographs show a roof, the underside of which is shown in a photograph here. [1] (the same photo linked above here) 24.197.176.172 (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Does that suggest it has been restored, perhaps? Bagunceiro (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It has a roof, since 2000.[2] 24.197.176.172 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks folks for your comments and refs. I've amended the article and hope it's now correct.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Too bad the mistake was already featured on the Main Page. Is there any way to add a note on the DYK archive mentioning that a mistake had been made? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Having the DYK say "used to have no roof" would be better, really. SilverserenC 22:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've made an error report here. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Having the DYK say "used to have no roof" would be better, really. SilverserenC 22:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Too bad the mistake was already featured on the Main Page. Is there any way to add a note on the DYK archive mentioning that a mistake had been made? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- Start-Class Christianity articles
- Low-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- Start-Class Anglicanism articles
- Low-importance Anglicanism articles
- Start-Class Architecture articles
- Unknown-importance Architecture articles
- Start-Class Historic sites articles
- Unknown-importance Historic sites articles
- WikiProject Historic sites articles