Talk:St Mary's Church, Pentraeth

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the St Mary's Church, Pentraeth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

St Mary's Church, Pentraeth 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
Date	Process	Result
February 24, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 27, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that St Mary's Church, Pentraeth, Wales, was decorated in the 18th century with paper garlands, perhaps to celebrate parishioners' weddings?

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anglicanism Low‑importance

	St Mary's Church, Pentraeth is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 02:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at this over the next few days and then start to make some comments. SilkTork *^YES! 02:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

The lead needs building. SilkTork *^YES! 01:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Kennedy is mentioned in the Architecture section purely by surname. Though he is explained in the previous section, people don't always read articles through from start to finish. Somebody purely interested in the architecture might go straight to that section, so would not know who Kennedy is. SilkTork *^YES! 02:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Piscina" is explained by using the word "stoup", which in itself is an unfamiliar word. Perhaps "drain" is more useful? SilkTork *^YES! 02:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have "cinquefoils and tracery" again... SilkTork *^YES! 02:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Descriptions" or "Listing and descriptions" serve in place of Assessment? There is a sense of either a financial investigation or a formal summing up in the term Assessment that doesn't quite sit with the contents, which are commentaries or descriptions. SilkTork *^YES! 02:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA points

Another good article. There is a fair amount of content that could be mentioned in the WP:lead as per previous two GANS, and there are some words which need explaining, otherwise all is fine. I'll hold until March 3rd, or can be pinged before Friday. SilkTork *^YES! 02:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Thanks for the review and your comments.

I'm not convinced that Kennedy needs to be reintroduced in the second section having been introduced just 1.5 paragraphs earlier. If I'm reintroducing him, then the logic of this argument would seem to suggest that I also ought to explain the 1882 work. So we'd end up with something like "and Henry Kennedy (architect of the Diocese of Bangor) added red sandstone dressings in ~~his~~ 1882 ~~work~~ when he oversaw a partial but extensive rebuild of the church in 1882," If the article was longer and the mentions were further apart, it might be worth it. Otherwise, if we work on the basis that someone might start reading with the second section not the first, I might as well just repeat everything from the first section in the second section, which would be a lot of wasted time and words. I've added him into the lead, though, which might help address your point another way.
changed to "piscina (a water basin)"
Added explanations for tracery and cinquefoils
I disagree that assessment only implies financial investigation; it's simply a suitable word for a section that basically says "Cadw have assessed it as Grade X for Y reasons, and here's what other people have said about it." "Descriptions" doesn't really work for me, as I've spent the previous paragraph(s) of the "architecture and fittings" section describing the church, i.e. giving a commentary on its physical appearance. This section is for qualitative views / assessments by a quango and other writers. I had a look at the other GA churches, and none really have a section of this nature, so I can't steal any ideas from them. However, I notice that St Mary's Church, Astbury had "assessment" as well until you changed it, so I'm not the only person who likes it as a section title...
Lead expanded.

How's it looking now? Bencherlite ^Talk 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about Descriptions - that is already used in a number of articles for a basic description of something, rather than any form of formal review or assessment with an expert opinion or viewpoint. I modified Assessment in St Mary's Church to Assessments to see how that sat. There is more than one assessment taking place, so the plural seemed both appropriate and helpful. But it's a minor issue....

Kennedy in the lead works.

Amendments are great. Listing..... SilkTork *^YES! 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]