Talk:Wells Cathedral

Reversals to changes.

Please excuse my typos, pending durther eye surgery.

I have reversed the edits by Z1720 (talk). as having been made in igmorance of the subject they were editing, and under the impression that the many small galleries of pics were repetitious, I suppose.

The status of Wells Cathedral, architecturally, is that it is one of the most important and innovative Gothic buildings in the World. It breaks new ground. It sets the pattern for how the Gothic arch could be developed in a more advanced way than anything in France at the time. The architect totally 'got' the potential to which the pointed arch could be used.... and the next chap was even able to do it three-dimensionally.

I have looked through the pics and .... OK, maybe I have been too kind in not removing someones's extra pic of the St Andrew's cross arch ..... but removing them altogether , which was the way I found it... and reducing the main view of the most innovative nave in England to a thunbnail...... is going too far!

Maybe we do need only one misericord! But then again, the claim is made that they are one of the finest sets in Britain so reoresenting four distinctly different types might be justifiable, unless we produce a separate article rather than a subheading.

Everything at Wells Cathedral is significant.

Amandajm (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• @FAC coordinators: noting WP:FA? #1e. SerialNumber54129 20:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • namely "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; ...." - well, these changes, which only affect the images, are "in response to the featured article process" - see section above. There have actually been two edits over 2 weeks or more, leaving the article more or less where it began. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Noting that 1e does not concern itself with how different versions of the article are, but the volume and speed of the edits in between them; also known as precisely the point I was bleeding making!SerialNumber54129 12:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Oh, it was? Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• I initiated a copyedit of the article because I nominated it for WP:TFA for October 23. The scheduling co-ordinator for October, SchroCat, mentioned that the article needed a copyedit, and I agree. Much of what I removed was, in my opinion, promotional language, off-topic information that compared Wells Cathedral to other architecture, excess description, merging one-paragraph sections or uncited information. A large amount of images make the page hard to load for some readers and too much detail discourages people from reading the article. I encourage editors to read through the prose and decide what should be included in this article and how it can be improved. If editors think the article is FA quality as-is, I encourage them to bring it to WP:FAR so that the community can determine if this article still meets the featured article criteria. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• "in my opinion" being the crucial point here. As I said in the section above, I thought you had considerably overdone it in both areas, though some trimming would be justified. But it was better to revert the lot than leave it all. Most of what you removed was there when the article passed FAC in 2014 I think. The FAC (in which I did not participate) was long and detailed, and the reviewers did not share your concerns, one specifically praising the use of lots of images, and so on. I think this is not your normal area of editing, and it shows in remarks like "promotional language, off-topic information that compared Wells Cathedral to other architecture, excess description...". The "promotional language" bit is typical of the misuse of policy links I noted above. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removals, although they were well intentioned (myself and Z1720 ⋅have worked a lot together in FAR over the recent past). I think there is confusion with architectural language and puffery. The language removed imo was descriptive using standard terms; on that basis I don't think a FAR is warranted, unless we invent a new speak for describing buildings. Ceoil (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to comment here on the use of so-called "promotional language".

Wells Cathedral, though little-known alongside Canterbury, Salisbury, York Minster and Westminster Abbey (which are tourist fixtures,) is in fact one of England's most significant works of architecture.

It demonstrates ground-breaking architectural style.

It makes English Gothic distinctly different from French Gothic.

It paves the way for a totality in the expression of Gothic through the application of the pointed arch which is first realised in this building, not in France, considered the home of Gothic.

If an encyclopedic article is to express the significance of this architectural masterpiece, then descriptive words, and comparisons with other buildings are relevant.

This is the "Mona Lisa" of English architecture, which, like that painting, created revolutionary change, rarely recognised by those who stand in front of it, and in the case of the painting, generally wonder why they do not see something more than a gentle enigma.

The problem is that this, the so-called "Queen of Cathedrals", is not recognised as unique.

If those two western towers had been topped with two tall spires, as appears to have been intended, then it would have more of a "wow" factor.

But even as it stands, that west front, and all that lies behind it, is incomparably important.

Amandajm (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

TFA October 23

I have just made some minor tweaks to this article. Hoping they are okay, these are other possible changes...

• Caps consistency - Cathedral choir v Cathedral Choir
• I was interested to know about the (alternative) spelling of Walter Ralegh but I can't reach either FN 51 or 53.
• There is inconsistency in page numbering style, eg pp. 126–7. v pp. 156–157.
• At "novel The Pillars of the Earth and with a modified central tower, featured as the fictional Kingsbridge Cathedral at the end of the 2010 television adaptation of that novel" - there is an article for the adaptation The Pillars of the Earth (miniseries) but I didn't add the link as that article is older than the FAC so wondered if left off intentionally
• "Britania" x3 - is the missing "n" intentional?
• "The current bishop of Bath and Wells is Peter Hancock, who was installed in a service in the cathedral on 7 June 2014." - He retired 2021, needs update to Michael Beasley (bishop) (as does Hancock's article, successor in ibox and TBA in Succession box template)
• "John Davies has been Dean of Wells since 2016." - He finished 2023, now per Dean of Wells, is Toby Wright (like Hancock, Davies' article needs the two same updates) JennyOz (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

TFA October 23 (2)

I'm not sure if this article should have been made a TFA, as it isn't in as good a state as it may appear to be at first glance. The dispute over the copyediting in August could possibly have been taken as a warning, but to be clear I don't think this is the fault of any editor in particular.

I've just given the lead an overhaul and given it a sourced paragraph on the building history taken from Pevsner's Buildings of England and the Historic England listing. I'm happy to discuss any of these changes, of course.

While doing this, I noticed that despite the very welcome efforts of @JennyOz earlier today the information on the bishop and dean was out-of-date further down the article. There area also issues with the sources. Some are old enough for their reliability to be dubious, for example Charles Cockerell's Iconography of the West Front of Wells Cathedral, which may be accurate in the essentials but was published in 1851 and therefore pre-dates several major restorations. The article also relies on some fairly flimsy webpages, such as "World's oldest clock? Doubtful" and this page from "Britannia" (not theEncyclopedia Britannica), which again may not be inaccurate per se but which are difficult to verify. The edition of Pevsner used in the body is also the 1958 first edition rather than the 2011 second edition. The version I've used in the lead is revised 1985 account, so still not perfect but at least a little more recent.

The article isn't in terrible shape, I don't think, but it needs a really thorough checking of its sources and for outdated information. It probably isn't at FA standard as it stands. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope: WP:FAR is one place where an article's FA status can be discussed. The first step in an FAR is to notify the article on its talk page. Z1720 (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I may well open a review, but wanted to see what other editors thought first. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)