Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St John the Divine, Calder Grove

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BencherliteTalk 09:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Church of St John the Divine, Calder Grove

[edit]
(
)

Scissor-truss openwork timber church roof

  • Comment: This article was started in my sandbox as an expansion of this paragraph from the William Swinden Barber article (it is now more than 5 times that size). It was then moved from sandbox to mainspace. The above image is for the first hook; there is no citation for it since the image stands as evidence. Alt 1 has its online citation in the article header.

Moved to mainspace by Storye book (talk). Self nominated at 19:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

  • Article creation/expansion date okay, article length and/or expansion ratio okay. The article and hook sourcing is of the enterprising variety, which is alright with me. The picture hook is much better than ALT1 in terms of interest. The one thing I would ask be changed is the use of "recent" in a section header and text – this article should still make sense 20 years from now. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Done - thanks for the heads up on that one. I prefer the original hook too. --Storye book (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, hook facts require written documentation. Interpreting a picture is a form of WP:OR, and not acceptable for DYK. Unless there is a text source that states that the church has a "scissor-truss roof", then the original hook is not usable. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT2 needs reviewing, along with other facets not covered in original review, including neutrality, close paraphrasing, image usability, and perhaps sourcing (the term "enterprising variety" says nothing about the usual criteria, such as "reliable"). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The ALT2 hook fact is sourced at this site, as indicated in the article, and is well under 200 characters. It's not very hooky, but that happens sometimes. I did look at the images for the original review, I just didn't note it. Most are by the author of the article and published under a CC license; the rest are late 19th/early 20th century ones considered in the public domain or otherwise not under copyright. I didn't detect any close paraphrasing and on another look, I still don't. As for neutrality, the author has used the language of critical works on architecture, but given that context, I feel it is neutral. As for the author's sources, I have judged them to be reliable, though to be sure they are not very secondary. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's just take one sentence: "On entering this small and unassuming building, the unexpected glory of the interior for the visitor is the scissor-truss roof,[20] which after more than a century retains rare stencil paintings by Powell Bros of Leeds on the chancel beams.[21]" This is sourced to two photographs. "Small and unassuming", "unexpected glory", "rare" - POV. "Scissor-truss roof", "more than a century", "stencil paintings by Powell Bros of Leeds" - well, as this is only sourced to photographs, there are obvious problems with OR / verification. Looking more widely, I see that lots of the article is "sourced" to photographs or to unpublished documents in the church archives, or an apparently unpublished local history leaflet. The curates section gives lots of dates for appointments, but sourced only to birth and death certificates, which doesn't work. Unless, of course, the reference next to the final sentence to an unpublished list of curates in the church archives is enough to cover the whole section, which it isn't, in more than one sense. I could go on (e.g. the unsupported speculation in the "repairs and reordering" section; the claim in the lead that "It was funded by local benefactor Mary Mackie in memory of her husband" when the source does not mention her husband; speculation about the architect not supported by the cited sources: "Some of his major designs which would have made his reputation and recommended him for this task are..."; the visual mess caused by an over-use of photographs when links are provided in any event to Commons) but this article is not fit for the main page in its current state. BencherliteTalk 07:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I withdraw this nomination. Meanwhile, I shall be re-editing it shortly. In the Clergy section there will be extensive additions and citations from Crockfords Clerical Directory. In the building-description sections it is likely that there will be citations from English Heritage, since the building is expected to be listed soon. There will be further citations from 19th century newspapers, in view of further planned research. Building-descriptions were usually appended to 19th century articles on foundation stone laying and consecration. All this takes time, hence the withdrawal.--Storye book (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (watching) I don't think you have to withdraw, just ask for patience. Other nominations took months to settle, why not this one? Your reviewing work is excellent! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It can be renominated if it is improved to GA status, but there is no point in keeping this open now. BencherliteTalk 09:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Church_of_St_John_the_Divine,_Calder_Grove&oldid=611502582"