Template:Did you know nominations/St Cynfarwy's Church, Llechgynfarwy

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

St Cynfarwy's Church, Llechgynfarwy, Cynfarwy

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

)

~~... that the age of the church (pictured) dedicated to St Cynfarwy in Anglesey, Wales, cannot be ascertained because it was extensively rebuilt in the 19th century?~~

Reviewed Did you know nominations/Alexander Jones, Did you know nominations/Tommy Ball

Created/expanded by Bencherlite (talk). Self nom at 10:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The article meets the criteria, but the hook isn't punchy and isn't clearly backed up by references within the article. The hook is backed up by ref 3, but not clear in the article. How about adding "the present church has a continuous nave and chancel of uncertain date" to the article with ref 3. Then we can go for:

:ALT1 ... that although a listed building, Cadw does not know how old the combined nave and chancel of St Cynfarwy's Church, Llechgynfarwy is? (pictured) Wikiwayman (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that's an improvement, for several reasons. (1) I've paraphrased the source by saying "The date of the present structure is uncertain", and mentioning later in the article that there's no structural division between nave and chancel. I'm not going to add your wording to the article, which is copied directly from the source without paraphrasing. (2) "Although a listed building, Cadw..." – Cadw is not a listed building. (3) Your revised hook doesn't include the second article I've nominated, Cynfarwy. Please reconsider your opposition to my hook. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the article and I would like as many people as possible to read it. The picture is good as a thumbnail so it should be possible to get a top listing. (1) If you could add ref 3 to the end of the second sentence in the introduction, there's no need to change the article wording. (2) I understand the church is a Grade II listed building and Cadw administer the listing, I thought that was clear, but I'm all for avoiding ambiguity and can see how that might happen with ALT1. (3) My mistake; Cynfarwy meets the DYK criteria and there's no reason not to include it in the hook. It's difficult to be "punchy" with two similar terms in the hook, but maybe we could add something about Cynfarwy himself to add contrast (and interest)?

ALT2 ... that while St Cynfarwy's work can be dated to 7th-century Anglesey, the age of the church dedicated to him (pictured) cannot be ascertained due to extensive rebuilding? Wikiwayman (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- We're nearly there. I'd rather not add unnecessary references to the lead per WP:LEADCITE, as the facts are referenced in the article body anyway. How about this?
  - ALT3 ... that while St Cynfarwy was active in Anglesey, Wales, in the 7th century, the age of the church dedicated to him (pictured) cannot be ascertained due to extensive rebuilding? Bencherlite ^Talk 12:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Good to go. Wikiwayman (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)