Talk:St Mary's Church, Reculver/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 12:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Te[reply]

Lead

"... beginning a connection with Kentish kings that led to the church becoming very wealthy by the end of the 8th century, during which King Eadberht II of Kent was buried there." The Origins section says it had become wealthy by the early 9th century, not the end of the 8th. And tagging on King Eadberht II's burial doesn't really work, as it looks like what's being said is the he was buried during the end of the 8th century.

I've tweaked this information, any better now? Nortonius (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "St Mary's Church" or St Mary's church"? Both appear in the lead.

I've gone with "St Mary's Church" throughout – sorry, we went through this at All Saints' Church, Shuart! Nortonius (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

"Dr Susan Kelly refers to the church as a minster, but Prof Nicholas Brooks refers to it as a monastery". It's not usual to include honorofics such as "Dr" or "Prof".

Hmm, I think I was trying to avoid starting the sentence with "Historian Susan Kelly refers ..." and "Prof Nicholas Brooks" just followed that pattern – would just "Susan Kelly refers ..." do? Nortonius (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "Historian Susan Kelly ..." Eric Corbett 17:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so would I have done until I was warned off "anarthrous nominal premodifiers"! ~~Then I'll need to call both Kelly and Brooks historians. Fine by me.~~ I've had a stab at resolving this by other means, any good? Not sure I like using "former ... latter", but... Nortonius (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done! Eric Corbett 18:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! [takes a bow]. Nortonius (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enlargement

Why is what looks like St Mary's called Reculver church in the image caption in this section?

Probably because I haven't spotted it since breaking this article out from Reculver last year! I'll fix it now, to "St Mary's Church". Nortonius (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St John's Cathedral, Parramatta

I'm not sure that fairly extensive quote in the middle of this section can really be justified.

How about if I move the quote to a footnote, and knit the remaining text together ~~somehow~~ like this? Nortonius (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks better I think. Eric Corbett 19:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

There seem to be a few dead links: #59, #62, #69, #84, #116 and #145.

[goes pale] Oh no – I fixed a few the other day, no idea why I allowed that to happen in the first place – I'll see what I can do. In other news, I was just thinking about the BNA and "subscription needed", I think there are some more, I'll get on those too. But I have a mate showing up shortly with BEER, so if you'll forgive me that might be it from me, either for several hours or (hic) until tomorrow. Thank you so much for what you've already done! Nortonius (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links listed by you are now all fixed bar one that I deleted and replaced with a printed source, as the website in question is under reconstruction and not archived. I'll check all the other links in the refs and fix/archive as necessary later today (I went through the bibliography links a few days ago), but if you checked them all already then we're done with that for now. I've also attributed the British Newspaper Archive in every instance. Nortonius (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All links now checked, provided with archive backups where appropriate, and one or two updated. All done! Unless you have anything outstanding? Nortonius (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing outstanding for me is the accuracy of the floor plan, which I've seen discussed elsewhere. Eric Corbett 20:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, sorry, I should've mentioned it here, but it didn't occur to me as it's an image and not text [slaps forehead] – you've probably seen, then, that Hchc2009 plans to update it Friday morning? It's only through Hchc2009's generosity and skill that we have that plan and it's not essential to the article, so I could remove it for now if you wanted, but waiting until Friday seems the most sensible thing to do now that you mention it. If Hchc2009 gets held up we could think again then – up to you, of course. Nortonius (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush, let's just wait until Friday. Eric Corbett 21:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'll keep you posted. Anyway I've just noticed what I sincerely hope is one last, final, lingering link that I haven't checked, gah... Just when I think it's safe. ~~I'll look into that later~~ Thankfully it was easy to fix, thanks again for now. Nortonius (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No news yet on that plan, but I'm loth to nudge Hchc2009, who I see has been very busy over the last couple of days. Also we have a few more days, do we not? Again, up to you of course. I said that plan wasn't essential to the article, but obviously it's a huge asset. In the meantime I'm thinking about ways to substitute it, should we come to that. No other available image that I've found comes close, but I think it can be done. Nortonius (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to bother Hchc2009. I'll fix the colouring on the diagram this afternoon and then we can close this review. Eric Corbett 13:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! That's excellent news – I knew you were multi-talented, but that, like other things, didn't occur to me! I haven't played with drawing software for a while, I'll have to check out Inkscape myself. I'll drop Hchc2009 a note when you're done, to take a load off. Nortonius (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done now I think. Eric Corbett 15:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly it! Superb. Not to mention above and beyond the call. Strangely though, now the image has propagated fully it looks like the bottom has been chopped off...? Nortonius (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's very strange, as everything looks fine to me with or without the 300px parameter.~~ Eric Corbett 15:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean now. Depending on whether or not you force the image size, and by how much, the bottom either appears or disappears. I'll upload the image again later and see if that cures whatever the problem is. Eric Corbett 15:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very peculiar – it's showing as I describe in Safari and Firefox on my computer, but I just had a look on an iPad and it looks perfect! D'oh. Fingers crossed then. Nortonius (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I spoke too soon again, the iPad's caught up with the "cropped" look. Strange thing is that when I first looked at the new version of the image at Commons I could swear it was all there, uncropped. Nortonius (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very strange, but I've uploaded the file again as it seems like it may have been truncated in the export, and everything looks fine now. Eric Corbett 16:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes very strange indeed – but I'm delighted to say that it now looks just as it should for me too, in two different browsers on my computer and on the iPad! Nortonius (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we can close this now, well done. Amazing what you managed to dig up on a ruin much of which has fallen into the sea. Eric Corbett 18:36, 23 May 2015 (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.