Template:Did you know nominations/Mattersey Priory

The following discussion 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 Alex Shih ^Talk 22:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Mattersey Priory

(

)

... that Mattersey Priory's church was destroyed by fire and was never rebuilt?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Gotham bee

5x expanded by Rushton2010 (talk). Self nominated at 14:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC).

The article is nicely written and well illustrated, and in good form overall, though it could probably use some more links to terms such as canon, transept, and so on. It is not a new article, but the length has expanded fivefold from August 8. In context, the hook seems a bit throwaway, buried in the body of the article, and has no further explanation other than the single statement that the fire occurred. It made me interested in knowing cause of fire, and why it wasn't rebuilt. On a first casual reading, the hook seems to be partially contradicted later in the article, when we're told the eastern cloisters were rebuilt—I had to look back to see that the hook specifies "church", but it might be better to consolidate information about the fire in one place for clarity. Haven't checked refs yet. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

According to this source: "the original priory buildings at Mattersey were destroyed by fire in 1279 so the remains today are of the 14th century dormitory, refectory, and the walls of the Chapel of St Helen". Cynwolfe (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I will point out, I had never heard of this priory when I started writing the article; thus everything I put in has had to come from the reputable sources I used. I've had no background or local knowledge to contribute -it all comes from the sources. And thus we are limited in that there is not a great deal written about the priory. I don't know what caused the fire: the sources don't say. I also don't know why the church wasn't rebuilt... the sources don't say.

For your other criticisms:

The precise statement in the article is "In 1279 the priory's church was destroyed by fire and was never rebuilt." So the presumption was your own. The article clearly states (as does the hook) that it was only the church.
Also the article doesn't contradict itself. The eastern cloisters was not "rebuilt"; as the article clearly states: "The eastern range of the cloisters was built after the fire of 1279".
As for that source you quote -I would say it is wrong. The sources I use are all reputable and specifically about the Priory (I mostly used English Heritage and Victoria County History). The one you quote is a single paragraph in an obscure (and obviously not very well researched) tourist guide.

English Heritage (who are an executive non-departmental public body of the British Government) and the Priory's "schedule" under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, for example, both prove that tourist guide is incorrect: "The visible remains include part of the twelfth century church, three partly blocked arches of the frater (refectory), the south wall, the foundations of the fourteenth century kitchen, and, to the north of the church, a fifteenth century tower".

So yes, that source you cite is wrong and the information and references used within the article correct.

Thanks - Best - Rushton2010 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you're responding to criticisms I didn't make, and I'm sorry, since I enjoyed the article. I didn't say there was anything wrong with your sources, and to me it's praise to say it interested me to know more. On a casual reading (which is what articles will get from passing readers who browse DYK for a novel read) it struck me that the fire was mentioned in two places, and that the specifying of eastern cloisters being built after the fire may have left it less than clear what the extent of fire destruction was, and what buildings were or were not rebuilt. I was going to provide some of the additional links I suggested, but I think I should just withdraw from this review and let someone else OK it. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Different reviewer required

Date, length and references all check out. An interesting article and good to go. Jack1956 (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)