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: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Overall: An interesting and useful article. Thank you for this. The hook has an offline citation, which I accept in good faith. Just a few minor issues. (1) The bottom end of the infobox and the image of Brodrick's drawing are crushing text between them, on a pc or laptop view. Also, the images in the main text are not thumbnails. I understand that a fair proportion of regular WP users have set their preferences so that they see images at a preferred size, but that only works for them if the images are thumbnails. So I would suggest that if the images in the first (history) section are set on the right, as thumbnails; that would solve both issues. (2) It would be worth putting the citation link next to the hook, above. When Admin comes to check this review, it will speed up their task. (3) This last point is only my opinion; ignore it if you wish. I think that the important and valuable history and description sections, which are clearly the result of a lot of work on your part, could look like a wall of text to some readers. It can be difficult to find the information that one is searching for in a longish text. Also, when in future an editor adds extra information, they may stick a new para in the middle and interrupt the logic of the piece. So, would it be possible to add a few third-level subheadings within those two longish sections, to help retain its shape in future years? Meanwhile, if you can sort out the text-crushing business, then this nom is a yes.Storye book (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Update: Minor points. I have just noticed that you have "inline" instead of "in line". "Inline" refers to having parts arranged in a line, and "in line" refers to being under control with regard to conformity. Also you have a repetition of "ashlar" in the description of the spire.Storye book (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for such a quick and thorough review, Storye book. Here is a link to the passage in the source supporting the hook, just to confirm it for you.
I tried, when putting the article together, a number of formations for arranging the images around the page, which is a difficult one because there are quite a few. I thought the optimal place to put the image of the drawing is up on the left, because being rather slim, it would minimise the text-crushing effect which you mention, although I don't think it seems that bad, and would be most appropriate next to the early history part of the article. If on the right, and below the infobox, it pushes all the rest of the images down next to the references and away from the descriptions of what they depict - unless I put some over to the left and initiate more text-crushing. So, short of removing some of the photos, I think the current layout is the best it can be. (Issues of article layout are not part of the DYK eligibility criteria, anyhow.)
I have followed your other suggestions, adding subheadings and a citation next to the hook. Rcsprinter123(spill beans) 12:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the improvements, and for the quick response. I have struck out the issues above, that you've resolved. I agree that DYK doesn't depend on that kind of style issue, although you may find that another reviewer may question it. The text-crushing business affects more people now that the wider monitors are so popular. Reviewers with wide monitors have in the past insisted on DYK that I use galleries instead - an advantage ultimately if one likes to use lots of images for art/architecture. But let's see what happens. Meanwhile I've given the nom a grey tick. If you would like to copy the quote (that you linked above) into the ref in the article, I guess I could give it a green tick. All the best, and thank you for your prompt cooperation. Storye book (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
An interesting and useful article. Thank you for this. The hook has an offline citation, which I accept in good faith. Just a few minor issues. (1) The bottom end of the infobox and the image of Brodrick's drawing are crushing text between them, on a pc or laptop view. Also, the images in the main text are not thumbnails. I understand that a fair proportion of regular WP users have set their preferences so that they see images at a preferred size, but that only works for them if the images are thumbnails. So I would suggest that if the images in the first (history) section are set on the right, as thumbnails; that would solve both issues. 
Thank you for the improvements, and for the quick response. I have struck out the issues above, that you've resolved. I agree that DYK doesn't depend on that kind of style issue, although you may find that another reviewer may question it. The text-crushing business affects more people now that the wider monitors are so popular. Reviewers with wide monitors have in the past insisted on DYK that I use galleries instead - an advantage ultimately if one likes to use lots of images for art/architecture. But let's see what happens. Meanwhile I've given the nom a grey tick. If you would like to copy the quote (that you linked above) into the ref in the article, I guess I could give it a green tick. All the best, and thank you for your prompt cooperation. Storye book (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
