Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wells Cathedral/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Wells Cathedral

[edit]

Wells Cathedral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Rodw & Amandajm — Rod talk 12:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wells Cathedral has unique Gothic architecture and complex history. These are described and illustrated within the article, which has been edited and reviewed by dozens of editors, so that I feel it now meets the FA criteria. — Rod talk 12:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, and those that aren't shouldn't. Check for other grammatical problems in captions, like the extra comma in the Ministry image
I've just checked them. Amandajm (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:WellsCathPlan_numbered.JPG: when/where was this first published?
Fixed, AJM
  • File:Wells_Cathedral,_Chantry_in_Nave_by_Francis_Bedford.jpg needs US PD tag
Fixed, AJM
  • File:Wellsgrotesque.jpg: I'm not seeing any info about licensing at the source link?
Response I did not find a license at the source link either. I presume that the license under which it has been uploaded to Commons reflects the request at the source link that Cornell should be acknowledged. AJM
Fixed, Amandajm (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I peer reviewed this article, and my minor queries were thoroughly dealt with. Since then the page has been further reviewed and improved. I don't as a rule comment on images as WP's arcane rules are beyond me, but the text is in my judgment clearly of FA quality: the prose is a pleasure to read; the balance of the article is judicious; the sources are varied and well cited; there is ample but not excessive detail. Any visitor to Wikipedia in search of information about Wells Cathedral will be well served by this article. A fine piece of work which it is a pleasure to support. – Tim riley (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I've also reviewed this one and am happy to support it for FA. Only one minor quibble would be that I think the big table and plan might look better a bit further down the article and seems to affect the flow/appearance a bit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dismail Fail I cannot make the map look plan in colour. Never mind! Amandajm (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody who assesses images or MOS issues might want to review the image alignments and sizes. On my browser a lot of the images look very large and there's quite a lot of section breaks and page stretching.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think they all seem to be set at upright=1.25 or above, which is a bit bigger than the default (upright=1.0 is the default thumbnail size, if I remember correctly). There's nothing in the MOS that prevents this, and it can be quite appropriate on particular images, but because they've all been expanded, it will create a strange effect on many screens. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I have no idea what sort of "strange effect" your referring to. I look at these article on an ipad as well as a wide screen, and also experiment with the width, to make sure that the images remain in the relevant sections, regardless of whether the screen is wide or narrow.
The issues of left aligned and forced image sizes have been addressed below & as you say there is "nothing in the MOS that prevents this" so does this issue still need to be discussed? I've tried the article on several devices & screen settings without problems but can you specify the "strange effect on many screens", so that we can look at how to resolve it? Is this a wider issue which might affect other articles or specific to this one?— Rod talk 09:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the article having all the images enlarged, the problem is that they will all look bigger than the default that's set on any individual system. With lots of images, this then can rapidly take up quite a lot of room. The MOS encourages standard sizing, which can be done very easily (i.e. just take out the "upright=1.2" bit, and they'll appear at default size) unless there's a special reason why they individually need to be bigger - you might argue the Victorian fittings needs to be larger, so you can see the detail better, perhaps, for example. Some of the multiple images are also quite enlarged from the default, although they're done using px sizing. I'd also advise following the MOS guidance on left justified images, namely that "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph." Hchc2009 (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response on images. I don't understand why the image size of upright=1.25 is a problem. There seems to be a presumption that most users set their own defaults. In my experience, this is not the case. Most users don't know how to set default sizes. I have never had a computer that sized the images differently, and when I use computers in different countries, the images look the same size as they do on mine at home.
Basically, the thumbnail default it too small for looking at detailed images. It is a ridiculous size for an artwork, or a detailed piece of architecture. If you look at the view of the cathedral from above, for example, you can't make out the pertinent details at small scale.
  • The other matter has been dealt with, below.
I find the MOS guidance of left-hand images to be unsatisfactory from the point of view of both visual layout and readability. In the case of a short section of text, it is better to move the sub-section heading along with the text than to put the picture in a position where it chops up the placement of paragraphs in a short section. The present arrangement works better than the alternative. Amandajm (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re sizing of paired images. I have just reduced all of them. Amandajm (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the article as it stands is compliant with MOS:IMAGES, Amandajm, which is a requirement for FA status. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I, and unless it's fixed I'll be opposing this article's promotion. Eric Corbett 12:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of Images

(putting all this together)
  • I have just been, again, to the MOS re images. The only non-compliance with the MOS is this
Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph.
My response to this has already been given:
  1. The standard placement of pictures (given elsewhere in the MOS) is immediately under the heading or sub-heading so that they fall in the right section. But, in the case of a left-hand placement, putting the image under the sub-heading splits the sub-heading from the text and affects readability, as noted above.
  2. One solution to the problem, as given in the MOS, is to place the image beneath the first paragraph. This sometimes works. But it often results in the displacement of the heading of the unrelated paragraph below.
  3. In the specific case of this article, the relevant sections are very short. This means that there is no option (in most cases) to put the image after the first paragraph.
  4. The layout solution that maintains the sub-heading with its relevant text is to put the image immediately above the heading, as has been done here.
In this instance, the solution provided by the MOS is not a good one. The alternative solution needs to be written into the MOS as an option, in a case such as this, or in cases where the left-hand image is very long and narrow.
With regards to the sizing of images:
  1. Detailed images need to be larger than thumbnail as per MOS. Upright=1.25 reveals far more in the highly detailed images than thumbnail does. (e.g. the aerial view of cathedral and precinct)
  2. I have sized the majority of single images to the same upright 1.25 because the layout of the article as a whole looks better if the horizontal images are all sized the same.
  3. A number of non-detailed single images (the font etc) could be reduced thumbnail. However, this would affect the overall layout of the article.
My preference is to maintain the constant size for the overall visual appearance. However, if there is good reason for downsizing the non-detailed images, we should do it.
Re sizing of paired images:
  1. With similar overall layout in mind, I have attempted to size all the paired images in such a way that the boxes are the same overall size (within each major section) and sit well with the single images.
  2. The sizing is not all that easy to adjust as the images sometimes simply refuse to appear at certain sizes.
  3. I have just down-sized all the paired images so that they don't take up so much width. This has made some of the vertical images very small, but, never mind!
Amandajm (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • overlinking—there is a fair amount of overlinking, I suggest you run the duplicate links script.
  • Many of the left-aligned images force headings into the text, very unappealing appearance.
  • Alternating images right/left is normal procedure. However, when the sections of text are relatively short, then the left images always displace the text. There are two separate issues here:
  1. On any wide screen, images tend to displace text. The worst offenders are right-hand boxes which often push right-hand images right out of their section, yet are tolerated, and even liked! With left-hand images, if the sections are short, then the images routinely push aside those headings that are below them, and which are generally not the heading most relevant to the picture that is doing the displacing. It just has to be tolerated.
  2. The other problem is in the placement of the relevant heading. With right-hand pictures, the image generally goes right after the heading, and nothing gets displaced. But with left-hand images, if the image is placed immediately under the section heading, then the section heading gets split from its text, and the eye has to jump sideways from the heading to the text of the section. For this reasons, it is preferable to place the left-hand image immediately above the heading that it relates to, so that the heading remains alongside the relevant text. It has been done like this in this article, because the alternate solution is worse, not better. Displacement of headings is going to happen at some point, unless you are using a narrow vertical screen. Amandajm (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remove forced image sizes since they override user preferences, a particular problem on tablets etc.
  • The "forced sizing" has been done in a manner that does not cause problems on ipads. They all seem to shrink down to thumbnail size or upright. I cannot check it on a mobile at present, but have done so using the same format in a different article on a previous occasion, without problem . Amandajm (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the most poetic of the English Cathedrals—is "cathedrals" capitalised in your source?
  • sculptured figures—"sculpted".
  • four chief clergy, quattuor personae—why the Latin here, and nowhere else in the article? It only means "four people".
  • excommunicated, Strainer arches, nave, lectern, corbel —please link at first occurrence.
  • onset of the civil war—why lower case for the Civil War.
  • known as the Non-Jurors—convince me this should be capitalised.
  • which are around £2 million per year—"as of 2013" (or whenever your data is from).
  • Alec Clifton-Taylor —since you rely on his opinions, tell us who he is in the text, eg "English architectural historian Alec Clifton-Taylor".
  • Sir Banister Fletcher —as above.
  • Sheela na gigs—I assume you have capitalised "Sheela" as a proper noun. Convince me that it is a name
No, Sheela (today usually Sheila), is a *very* common first name. Ceoil (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your web references are a bit of a mess. You must have a publisher, usually following the title. Some of your refs either don't have a publisher or have the publisher where the author should be. 128 is a particular shocker. The authors appear to be Tate and "Turner" (apparently not notable enough for initials or a link). The author is J. M. W. Turner, the publisher is the Tate Gallery. Refs 130/131 can't even agree where the same publisher should go! There may be others.
  • I've dealt with the ones identified (used your guidance for 128 even though the Tate gallery now styles itself as "TATE" across all sites) and identified one other with a publisher missing. I hope I've caught them all now.— Rod talk 15:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left it as Tate Gallery
  • I'll have another read through tomorrow.
  • BBC or BBC News (refs 70/134)
  • 116 has no publisher
  • Newspapers, like the Telegraph, should be italicised
  • Bibliography. Use a consistent capitalisation style regardless of how the source book did it. Adkins, Hay and Sale at least are out of kilter, and Thornsby is just plain weird. Also decide whether to put spaces between initials or not, just random at present.
  • Ref 105 for Malden, page range should have ndash, not hyphen
  • I'm happy with the final round of responses. One thing I noticed but forgot to put is that Royal Hist. Soc. should be spelt out in full, per mos. I'll leave that with you since I'm now ready to support, changed above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on OR

  • A quick one. The article's using the inflation template to calculate the contemporary cost of a church organ (1620 costing of £398 1s 5d; modern equivalent £70,000) The template states the it is "only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets)" and warns that "incorrect use of this template would constitute original research". Church organs have never been part of the CPI in either the 17th or 21st century, and I would back up the wiki template in warning against using it for this purpose. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this very impressive article. I work in a similar area and have been following its development for a few months. I have small quibbles that I can look after myself. One thing, the lead is five paras and thus a little choppy; I would at least merge the first two. And loose the see also section. I think the choice of images is exemplary, the discussions of architectural features obviously deeply informed and clearly written; its a pleasure to see this finally here. Ceoil (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While no one can dispute the research and effort that has gone into this article, I think the prose could do with some tightening. I have addressed a couple of issues but think it could do with a copyedit from someone better than me. Scissors arch? J3Mrs (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response 1: "Scissors arch", I believe it has been deleted. I cannot believe that the following sentence doesn't describe the arches adequately:
"The unorthodox solution of the mason William Joy in 1338, was the insertion of low arches topped by inverted arches of similar dimensions, forming scissors-like structures that brace the piers of the crossing on three sides." NOTE: This description is teamed with a photograph, and the description of the arches being like a St Andrew's cross. Amandajm (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response 2: the article has suffered an ongoing problem from attempts to "tighten the prose" that have
  1. significantly changed meanings of sentences,
  2. diminished meaning by unlinking facts that should be linked
  3. linked facts that were not closely dependent,
  4. created the possibility for misunderstanding
  5. changed statements so that they were just plain erroneous
  6. gave certainty to facts that were deliberately expressed in a manner that did not imply certainty (the date of the foundation of the choir school, for example)
  7. shortened grammatical forms by the frequent removal of the word "that" from the beginning of clauses, e.g. "The canons complained that they had borne the cost of the rebuilding..." simplified to "The canons complained they had borne the cost of the rebuilding ...." The former is grammatically correct. The article does not need to be turned into journalise as no-one needs to count the column inches.
  8. There seems to be a misunderstanding (in some editors) of the use of participial phrases. A number of editors see the use of the present participle of a verb as a difficulty. Sentences like the following are grammatically correct: "The tracery of the windows is in the style known as Reticulated Gothic, having a pattern of a single repeated shape....". The sentence does not require changing into "The tracery of the windows is in the style known as Reticulated Gothic, it has a pattern of a single repeated shape..."
Response 3
I appreciate every effort of other editors to copy edit errors, whether they are spelling, typos, grammar, reference and number formatting etc etc. All these things are helpful.
On the other hand, the efforts to tighten up the prose have resulted in so many errors, potential mis-conceptions, poor grammar and poor expression that I have reached a point of frustration. I am sick and tired of having my expression tweaked by people who are not as familiar with the subject of the article as I am.
As a major editor of the article (and as a long-time writer on heritage related subjects) I am beginning to find the inadequate and inappropriate tweaking of my expression an affront.
As one of two major editors to this article, I ought to have some say in the manner of expression.
The bottom line is: If a major contributor prefers: "The canons complained that they had borne the cost of the rebuilding..." over "The canons complained they had borne the cost of the rebuilding...", then, as major contributor, I am requesting the right to maintain my preference, without feeling harassed about it.
You have two statements here, one from Cassianto saying that the article was easy to read, and the other, negative opinion, from J3Mrs whose efforts have introduced into the article a significant number of errors that have required fixing, and modes of expression of types that this major contributor to the article would not choose to use.
I am sick and tired of the petty, often unproductive, and sometimes detrimental nit-picking over the prose, which has been carefully constructed to convey encyclopedic material as accurately as possible.
God spare me from ever being so arrogant as to have to impose my "personal preferences" in matters of expression on an editor who writes accurate, grammatically correct prose, in the manner that some editors here apparently feel entitled to do!
Amandajm (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 I copyedited this article in good faith. I have corrected many capitalization errors, removed numerous "of the cathedral" type redundancies and other edits. Amandajm has posted this public berating and two private thank yous, I don't know what to make of that. I corrected what I saw as poor prose as it would have taken too long to catalogue. I stand by what I have done and think the article is better for it. I thought the idea was to review and improve not endorse what is lacking. PS the term is scissor arch and I would never use "being" instead of "was". J3Mrs (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response. J3Mrs, I apologise for the personally-directed nature of my comments. I want to stress that I appreciated all the tweaks to style and format. On the other hand, it was the tweaks to "expression" that changed the meaning here and there. I believe that at this stage corrections to expression (unless they are purely grammatical) ought to achieved by suggestion, rather than direct intervention. I respond to such suggestions as rapidly as I can, as does Rod, but I'm hampered in response if what I am doing is trying to sort out and rephrase things that have suddenly gone wrong.
Re Discussion of changes, the repeated use of the word "cathedral" for example, I have left your changes intact, but would have appreciated discussion on that matter, as another editor Derek Andrews, had complained on the talk page about exactly the opposite thing- the omission of the word "Cathedral" behind the word "Wells", seeing it as a sort of presumptuousness to simply call the cathedral by the name of the town. While you are obviously fully aware that "Wells" is the normal way to refer to the cathedral, other people are not.
Please read the new section and make as many comments as you like. It's already mentioned on the article talk page. Amandajm (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment3 This was not the first time you have attacked me in a very personal manner regarding this article and I noted on the talk page here that you consider I edit in "a very similar manner to vandalism", I think it best to say I am walking away. J3Mrs (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Nit-picking over the prose" is a long-established and important part of FAC reviews, which, as a co-coordinator, I find helpful when deciding if a consensus for promotion has been achieved. There are glitches that require attention:
  • Here, "Between 1275–1310 the undercroft and chapterhouse were built" and here "Between 1315–22 the central tower was heightened" for example. (In the Lead it is correctly written "The present building dates from between 1175 and 1490").
  • Some of the many "with" expressions might benefit from recasting such as, "with the body of the church being divided into distinct parts".
  • There is a formatting error here: Cockerell, Charles Robert (1851). Iconography of the West Front of Wells Cathedral. J. H. Parker. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFCockerell1851. Graham Colm (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Graham Colm. As I said above, that type of suggestion (or direct editing) is exactly the type that is desirable and most welcome.
I will look at the "with" expressions and see if this can better phrased.
Re Cockerell, I want to include a sentence or two that relates to that book. For this reason it hasn't been removed from the reflist. I'll get onto it, when I am not feeling quite so hassled about dealing with introduced errors.
Amandajm (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Between the dates. I think that I have fixed all of them. Amandajm (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With Removed 13 of them. You may have suggestions re others. Amandajm (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have'nt, but you might want to check whether the ten or so occurrences of "being" would flow better using a simple—and more elegant—present or past tense. Graham Colm (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

  • It might be apt to add Category:Libraries in England.
  • In the infobox, it might be apt to footnote the bishop-to-be, Peter Hancock.[2]
  • Regarding placement of images to the left of subheaders, I have no opinion at this time, except to say that this practice could easily be reduced; e.g. put the first image (baptismal font) at right, put the second image (Bishop's Palace) at left and down, et cetera (this rearrangement could be facilitated by breaking the first paragraph of some subsections into two shorter paragraphs). You might also consider a two-to-one ratio of pics on the right relative to pics on the left (I don't think there's any requirement about a one-to-one ratio). Overall, it's a very excellent article, and I look forward to supporting it for FA.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure about adding Category:Libraries in England as, although there is a paragraph on the library, it is not a major part of the article. Others such as Canterbury Cathedral which also have a brief mention of their library are not included. If we had a separate article on the library (similar to Lincoln Cathedral Library) then this would obviously be appropriate - perhaps we need a sub cat of Libraries in England for Cathedral Libraries? The new Bishop Peter Hancock has been discussed on the talk page and the suggestion was to wait until his enthronement (on some date in 2014) as he does not officially take office till then and therefore the post is currently vacant. I will leave Amandajm to comment on the images as the editor most responsible for the layout.— Rod talk 16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is already Category:Jewish libraries, so it would seem fine to start a Category:Church libraries or something like that. I don't see why it would have to be limited to England although it might be wise to limit it to really substantial libraries having more than X thousand books. The library at Wells Cathedral definitely is very substantial, and so adding Category:Libraries in England seems appropriate for now (that category already includes Stanley Burton Centre for Holocaust Studies which has more than just a library). Many Wikipedia articles have categories that do not apply to the whole entire article (e.g. Washington National Cathedral has a cat Category:Anglican cemeteries). I'm not a cat expert, so others may want to (purrorate) perorate on this matter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As there have been no further comments on this I have added the category - this can always be changed if a more appropriate cat is created. I have also added the note about acting diocesan and bishop-designate.— Rod talk 20:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rodw. The only outstanding issue I have is with the image placement, as described above, and I am reluctantly leaning "Oppose" for that reason. This is not to pick on Wells Cathedral at all; many Featured Article nominations have had to deal with this specific issue of images placed to the left of headers. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strepsirrhini/archive1,Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tripura/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stan Coveleski/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quagga/archive1,Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Southern Rhodesia in World War I/archive1.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response
  • The situation here is rather different to any of the articles that you mention above. (I have just looked at them all) With the exception of the article on Southern Rhodesia in the War, the articles are all very much shorter and are focussed on a considerably simpler subject: One person, one painting, one animal, one group of similar animals. In each case there are only a limited number of pics to be included. The topic of a major Gothic Cathedral with so much to described: Nave, choir, Lady Chapel, Chapter House, West front, tower sculpture, capitals, an organ, windows a palace, a street, gatehouse, cloisters, misericords, corbels, etc etc. Every one of these things requires illustration in order to do the subject justice.
  • Because of the complexity of the subject, their are lots of sub-headings and short sub-sections, nearly all with illustrations. This necessitates alternating the images right and left.
  • As I have written above, the layout choices are to put the left image under the sub-heading, or above it. If the picture is placed immediately below the the sub-heading, then the sub-heading gets split from its text. The alternative is to put the picture above the sub-heading, which moves the heading sideways and keeps it with the text. If you look at Southern Rhodesia in World War I, section Aviators and section Economic impact, you can see the result of allowing the sub-heading to be split from the text. It's not a good look.
  • If the section is long, the image can go further down. In the case of Wells Cathedral the sections are short, and this is not an option. If the pics move further don, they will still push headings aside, but it will be the one below, not the one relevant to the image. Amandajm (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Amandajm for the thoughtful response. I know it's kind of a pain in the neck to have so many MOS considerations, but they do still leave much flexibility. It's kind of a fun riddle to figure out how to get an article to do what you want, while still doing what the MOS wants. As another editor mentioned, the MoS should be adhered to strictly in regard to images being after, not before, the subheading of the section to which they relate, and this is for reasons of both presentation and accessibility. If you can find any other featured articles that have many images placed before the relevant section, then you will have a more persuasive case. Otherwise, what's done now for Wells Cathedral will be the first precedent for this sort of thing, so we have to think of more than this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expansion: As indicated, I have now used the book by Cockerell on the iconography of the west front to create a new section. Wells Cathedral#Architecture
My problem now is that I think that because the new section is long, it creates an overall imbalance. On the other hand I am loathe to cut it down as the west front is a very significant work of art in its own right. There is a good deal more that could be added, without becoming plagiarist.
Opinions, please: Should I leave it in the article (with a relevant image)? Or remove it and create a short linked article?
Amandajm (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grudgingly oppose Support - happy that my concerns have been addressed. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC) I'm going to have to grudgingly oppose this one. I believe that one of the FA requirements is that the article complies with the [Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images]. This includes using the default image size unless there are good reasons to the contrary. Every standalone image in this article (11 or so?) seems to be enlarged by 20%. This includes images that I would personally consider to be quite "normal" images, e.g. Vicars Close Wells Somerset.jpg. The MOS guidance on the placing of left-hand images is also being disregarded in this article. I say "grudgingly", as otherwise I'd like to support it. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hchc2009, you made a number of points before that related to sizing of images.
  • I responded, in point form, above, to every comment that you made.
  • I also went through the images and reduced in size all' the images that were in pairs, in direct response to what you had said.
  • I also addressed your present comment, This includes using the default image size unless there are good reasons to the contrary. I have responded to this earlier.
I have just reduced the image of the pulpit, which is the only image that doesn't show significant detail.
Re: The image of Vicars Close is only a "quite normal" image if you haven't realised its extraordinary significance. That is no "normal" street that you are looking at in that photo. It is the only remaining intact 15th century street in Britain (and probably in the world).
  • I have already explained that the mode of up-sizing allows the images to be viewed at a reduced size on small screens i.e. ion ipads and also on mobiles. I have checked the appearance of the article on both.
NOTE: Now that the only non-detailed image has been reduced, the images all comply with MOS in terms sizing to of include visual detail that is significant in the content of the article.
Amandajm (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
V. quick response (work beckons!). By "normal image", Amandajm, I meant that the image seems to be quite visible/adequate at a normal formatting size, not that the subject of the image (e.g. the street) isn't of historical interest. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hchc2009, As a person who deals with images on Wikipedia all the time, I find the thumbnail size too small to be effective for anything more than the simplest of images. At thumbnail size, It is clear that this is a street with houses, and that there appears to be a church at the end of the street. The difference to clarity that the additional 25% makes is enormous and justifies taking a pragmatic approach to the sizing. Wikipedia guidelines for images are not set in cement- they are recommendations.
I can only see one possible reason for enforcing the thumbnail rule- that is to allow the pics to work on a mobile phone. As I said before, the sizing of the images does work on a mobile phone. The images simply shrink to fit.
Is there any other purpose in setting the images all to thumbnail? Do we really have to enforce a "recommendation" as if it was a "rule"? Amandajm (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of changing the wording of the MOS and its recommendations on the default use of thumbnails, it's probably best to take it up on one of the related talk pages. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
But the question remains: Is it appropriate to enforce a "recommendation" as if it was a "rule", if, when all else it considered, there doesn't seem to be any good reason for the enforcement?
As I have said before, the current mode of formatting reduces the images to the required small size on mobile phones. Is there any other reason? Amandajm (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want a specialist for this (User:Pigsonthewing or similar, perhaps) but I believe the guidance is there to allow users the most flexibility in configuring how the wiki functions for them. If articles regularly use default sized images as the norm, the user themself can decide if typically that is suitable for them (they usually work fine on my screen, generally) or perhaps too small (as you've noted is the case for you above) or perhaps too big (I'm sure there's someone out there who thinks that), and reset their preferences accordingly. Overriding that on special cases is fine too. On my screen, having all the images in this article enlarged by 20% on the standard size means they are rather large and overwhelm the text. In my opinion, one or two of them should be enlarged because the detail is critical, but most of them should just be the regular default size, as per the MOS. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You called? Thank you. Wikipedia allows signed-in users to set their preferred size for image thumbnails (and Amandajm should do this if images appear too small for their eyes, on their setup); and provides a default size (which is nothing to do with mobile phones -styling for them is handled separately) for other users. These user preference, and default, should not be overridden throughout an article, just because of one editor's personal aesthetic preferences or technical circumstances. Consider a reader who has a small screen (say, a 9" netbook) and who has already set thumbnails to the maximum size allowed. Increasing them further makes them relatively huge, and reduces the amount of text that can fit on the screen alongside them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Pigsonthewing. Could you also please comment about whether it's okay to put images to the left of subheaders? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS should be adhered to strictly in that regard (and images should be after, not before, the subheading of the section to which they relate), for reasons of both presentation and accessibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Mabbett; Thanks for your response. Yes, there is a problem with the MOS on this point.
  • The MOS states quite clearly that the subheading should not be split from its heading, because it creates a disjunction and disturbs readability.
  • This conflicts with the MOS recommendation that the image should be placed directly under the sub-heading (adjacent to the relevant text)
  • The above method works fine for right-hand images. It doesn't work for left-hand images.
  • The reason why it doesn't work for left-hand images is that it splits the heading from its text, in conflict with the MOS. In other words, its a catch 22.
  • So looking at the two options: 1. split the heading from its text, 2. displace the heading so that it stays with the text, the latter option is preferable.
  • I would take the instruction "Do not split the heading from its text" as the RULE that applies in every circumstance and the instruction "place the image immediately below the heading to which it pertains" as a recommendation (which works for right-hand cases and not for left).
As I have pointed out before, any article that has short sections and left-hand images, suffers displacement of sub-headings below the image. This occurs in very many cases regardless of whether the image is above or below the sub-heading. This isn't visible on upright screens (mobiles etc) but is very visible on wide screen modern computers. It is almost unavoidable. The only solutions are not to have any left hand images (and overcrowd the right) contrary to the MOS which recommends alternating images, or else ignore the displacement that occurs on wider screens.
The following featured articles have instances of the sub-heading split from its text, in direct conflict with one aspect of the catch 22. It isn't a good look, and doesn't help the flow. Southern Rhodesia in World War I, Jimi Hendrix, Crocodilia.
The situation with the Featured Article James VI and I is typical of what happens in biographies, where, (in line with the MOS) portraits (upright and sometimes tall) are placed left. This article has a number of instance where the sub-heading is split, where the lower sub-heading is displaced, and in two instances a major heading and/or its accompanying line are displace by an image. (Please look on a wide screen, because the problem probably isn't visible on a tall one.)
So Andy Mabbett, Hchc2009, it's all a matter of which aspect of the MOS we are prepared to ignore: the instruction not to split off the Sub-heading causing disjunction in text, or the instruction to place the pic below the heading. I believe the solution that I have applied at Wells Cathedral and elsewhere, is the preferable alternative. Amandajm (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further.
  • I have just reformatted the first major section of Wells Cathedral so that the problem of splitting the sub-headings from text is apparent in the context of the article under discussion.
  • Note that in a couple of instances, lower headings are displaced. It would look much better is all affected headings were displaced rather than some displaced and others split off. Please compare this with the other sections which I haven't changed. (please view on a wide screen) Amandajm (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain I understand the problem here Amandajm. The image MOS guidance we're trying to follow here appears to be:

  • Images should typically be at the default size, unless there are special reasons.
  • Images should be typically be on the right hand side of the screen by default.
  • Images can be placed on the left or alternated (its not a recommendation, but an option), but left hand images shouldn't be at the start of a paragraph, and should be placed somewhere after the first paragraph.

I'm about to tweak the first major section to illustrate this, including an alternating left-right image pattern at the beginning for illustrative purposes. (NB: feel free to revert this edit - it is illustrative!) Formatted in this way the section seems to comply with the MOS guidance. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The images in the first section you have changed look OK to me on a couple of different screens. I haven't tested on mobile/tablet but I'm assuming they will work on these just as well.— Rod talk 07:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response
Andy Mabbett: Wikipedia allows signed-in users to set their preferred size for image thumbnails is something of a joke. Are we writing this ecncyclopedia for signed-in users, or for the World? The millions of people who use Wikipedia are mostly not "signed-in users". I can see a real purpose in taking mobile users into account, but the fact that some signed-in users chose to set images at a default really ought not dominate the way in which Wikipedia functions. It means that only the most computer-competent people are being well served by our product. It means that the choices of those who know they can chose over-ride the experiences of all those who don't. It takes care of the privileged few. Amandajm (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been told that the best way to increase the size of images effectively is to size them up as "upright= percentage", e.g. "upright= 1.5" etc. I have employed this system in sizing up images because I know that it works on a number of different devices. I have no idea how it affects those few "signed-in" users who like to set their own defaults (even if what it means to them is that some images are oversized as a result). I do realise that some of the people who set images large are those with poor vision. I have just checked some large-sized images to see how they fitted on the screen, and agree that in some cases the screen can look crowded.
The fact is that most Featured Articles on Art, Architecture and related fields have their images sized up, often to 300px. If they don't have their images sized up, then they are not conveying the pictorial information adequately to millions of our readers. If the article is talking about the pseudo-kufic inscription on the Virgin Mary's halo, the the reader needs to be able to see that it is in fact present, without interrupting their reading to go to the enlarged page. Wikipedia prides itself on the quality of its images, and rewards them for being of high resolution, and then sets rules that keeps them inadequately small, in the context of articles. Amandajm (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hchc2009, your solution of alternating the images in the reverse order to the way they were previously has worked in most instances in terms of addressing the problem with the headings.
  • My complaint is relatively minor. Mainly, it may comply, but it looks bad from a point of view of layout. Almost everything about it looks bad, for one reason or another. The info box pushes the first image. The image looks ugly sitting under a box of a different size, the wider image (the aerial view) and the image below it look messy. Seen with the eye of an artist/art historian, it is bad layout. If ugly layout that offends an artists eye is what it takes, the so be it.
Anythingyouwant, The most beautiful image in the article is now at thumbnail size. And the most significant cathedral west front in England, (and arguably the whole of northern europe) about which there are not one but two sections in the article, has also ben reduced to thumbnail. It is frankly ridiculous that these two important images should be so small. Basically, the article, viewed on any normal screen, now looks a mess.
I notice that you moved the group of images to the centre again. Please don't. As my edit summary stated (when I moved them) they need to be left in order to be viewed well on mobile phones. Amandajm (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will try an entirely different solution to fix the present ugliness problem. Amandajm (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eric makes some good points below (though I continue to support). If User:Amandajm would like, I'd be glad to go through the article from top to bottom and adjust items such as those pointed out by Eric, subject to being reverted in case of any disagreement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind they were just a few examples. Eric Corbett 22:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's why I said "such as".Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Good luck with it then. I think it needs a lot of work, but I'll revisit when you've had your evil way with it. Eric Corbett 22:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll only do it with permission, and Amandajm may prefer to do it "themself" (as they say on Wikipedia).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant, I have been around the traps, having had a very pleasant day off yesterday! Thanks for your offer! Amandajm (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please add these examples to the list:
  • "There is a hierarchy of size, with the more significant figures being larger and enthroned in their niches rather than standing."
  • "The eastern range is of two storeys, the upper being the 15th-century library above."
Graham Colm, don't miss a trick, do you? I got rid of a dozen of them, only to write in a couple more. Oh well.... Amandajm (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed- and doing it gave me this kind of unbearable lightness ...... I think I need more coffee. Amandajm (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amandajm, the first paragraph of the lead is fairly crucial, and so I'd like to suggest some minor edits to make it read a bit more smoothly (underlines signify additions, and strike-throughs signify deletions):

This makes it crystal clear that the cathedral is not dedicated to the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and differentiates in a crystal clear way between cathedrals and the towns where they are located (thus making the paragraph "idiot-proof" which a lead paragraph ought to be). Also, writing "it is the dominant feature of its...." had a bit too much "its" for my taste. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I think this is rather clumsily written, a few examples:
  • "Since the 11th century the church had a chapter of secular clergy ...". Strange use of tense.
  • "The clergy were endowed with twenty two prebends ..." Obviously ought to be "twenty-two".
  • "The cathedral was conceived and begun around 1175 by Bishop Reginald Fitz Jocelin". Why do we need to be told this twice, once in the History section and again in the Construction section?
  • "The cathedral is designated by English Heritage as a Grade I listed building, and scheduled monument." English Heritage isn't responsible for designating Scheduled Monuments.
  • "Its clergy has a long tradition of singing or reciting from the Book of Psalms each day ..." "Clergy" is sometimes treated as a singular noun as here, but at other times as a plural, as in "The clergy were endowed with twenty two prebends".
  • "Wooden galleries that had been installed in the 16th-century ...". Why the hyphen? Similarly, "The 19th-century saw the restoration of the building and its fittings."
  • "Wells is not only the first cathedral in England to be commenced in the Gothic style ...". Very strange use of the word "commenced".
  • "From about 1192 to 1230, the first known architect, Adam Lock ...". So Adam Lock was the first architect known anywhere in the world?
  • "Its southwest tower was begun 100 years later ..." but "To the north-east is the large octagonal chapter house ...". Should be consistent. Eric Corbett 21:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Thank you for your pertinent comments User:Eric Corbett.
  • Fixed- "has had"
  • Fixed- "twenty-two"
  • Repetitious sentence changed.
  • Fixed- "scheduled monument"
  • Fixed "clergy" to clerics, etc here and there where appropriate to indicate individuals rather than the collective.
  • Fixed- "16th-century", I think that I have picked up the instances where the hyphen was misused.
  • Used of word "commenced"- The sentence has been rewritten.
  • Fixed- any uncertainty about the status of Adam Lock
  • Fixed- "north-west" etc now consistent.
Amandajm (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Comment cut'n'paste: We've had an edit conflict here. I'll get back to the later comments Amandajm (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amandajm, the first paragraph of the lead is fairly crucial, and so I'd like to suggest some minor edits to make it read a bit more smoothly (underlines signify additions, and strike-throughs signify deletions):

Wells Cathedral is a Church of England cathedral in Wells, Somerset, England, dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle and it is the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The present building dates from between 1175 and 1490, an earlier church having been built on the site in 705. It is moderately sized among the medieval cathedrals of England, falling between those of massive proportion, such as those at Lincoln and York, and the much smaller ones at Oxford and Carlisle. With its broad west front and large central tower, it is the dominant feature of its the small cathedral city of Wells and is a significant landmark in the Somerset countryside.[10] Wells This church has been described as "the most poetic of the English cathedrals".[11]

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "it is"- added the "is" but not the "it" as the noun subject is quite clear.
  • "those at"- this returns to a bit of a misunderstanding that was commented on previously. The name of the cathedral is its place-name. In any article about cathedrals (or bishops for that matter, or British nobility, in that context), one simply uses the place-name for the building or person. Once it is clear that the article is about cathedrals, then "Wells" = "Wells Cathedral".
The sentence "It is moderately sized among the medieval cathedrals of England, falling between those of massive proportion, such as Lincoln and York....." means" Lincoln Cathedral and York Cathedral". It doesn't mean "the cathedral at Lincoln and the cathedral at York". Nobody ever refers to them as "the cathedral at Lincoln". I believe that in the context of this sentence, it is perfectly clear that what is being referred to is "medieval cathedrals of England".
  • "its small cathedral city". This is correct. The city is a city for only one reason- it is the location of Wells Cathedral. If it were not for that cathedral, then the town of Wells would be just a market town. (A market town is a village or town that has a charter to hold a market, generally serving surrounding villages). The name of the cathedral city doesn't need stating, because it cannot be anything except "Wells".
  • "Wells has been described as......" This is "Wells" the cathedral, not Wells the town. To refer to Wells as a "church" in this context downplays its significance. From now on, within the context of the article, every time "Wells" is referred to, it means the cathedral. If the town is referred to, then it is called "the city of Wellls" or "the town".
  • Likewise, because the context is "cathedrals", if Wells is compared to Salisbury, Norwich or Exeter, it means "Salisbury Cathedral", "Norwich Cathedral" and "Exeter Cathedral". The use is consistent throughout the article. Amandajm (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the words "cathedrals of" before Oxford and Carlisle. That should make it idiot proof. Amandajm (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Do you mind if I go through the rest of the article like this, to perhaps deprive Eric of further examples?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, go for it. I have already done this "cathedral" thing over twice. At an earlier request, I inserted the word "cathedral" many times. J3Mrs removed them all. You can't keep everybody happy, so in the end, I just comply with what architectural historians usually do, and use "Wells" etc throughout.
I'll come back and look for your messages in a bit. I would rather you left messages than made changes. I am very happy to either fix or discuss. Amandajm (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are three items in the later paragraphs of the lead that caught my eye:
  • "The architecture of the cathedral presents a harmonious whole, in the sense that it is entirely Gothic and mostly in a single style, the Early English Gothic of the late 12th and early 13th centuries." This clarifies that it is a harmonious whole because of being entirely gothic; if there are other reasons for it being a harmonious whole then you can say something like "for instance because it is" or "for example because it is". If this doesn't suit you, then please consider replacing the first comma with the two words "that is" because the sentence seems kind of choppy to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed: "in the sense that it is" is correct but clumsy. The correct form there is the participial phrase beginning with the continuous "being" i.e. "being entirely Gothic". The problem with this form is that I over-use it to such an extent that it is something of a joke. I have added "which is".
  • Fixed
  • "Unlike the many English cathedrals of monastic foundation, Wells has an exceptional number of surviving secular buildings associated with its chapter of secular canons secular clergy." I expect that many readers will understand the word "secular" to mean non-religious, and the article on secular clergy has a fairly clear explanation what that's all about.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: The present linked article at canons is the one that describes the situation more clearly, and also gives the later history of what happened at the English cathedrals under Henry VIII.

I am going to try to resist temptation to look at the cited sources during this process, except on this item:

  • "The earliest remains of a building on the site are of a late Roman mausoleum, identified during excavations in 1980.[15][16]" The first cited source mentions "an early 5th cent Chapel", is that correct? Maybe worth mentioning?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: It mentions a 9th-10th century mortuary chapel. AJM
  • I have obviously looked at a different source. But, anyway, if your source says "5th century chapel" then it is the rarest building in England. It's obviously a typo. The chapel at the end of Vicars Close is 15th century. AJM

Regarding the rest of the "Early years" subsection:

  • “In 766 Cynewulf, King of Wessex, signed a charter endowing the church with eleven hides of land.” Per the Wikipedia article titled Virgate there were about 30 acres per hide, so maybe help the reader out here by converting units (at least in a footnote)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK A hide is about 120 acres. 30 acres is a quarter of a hide. AJM
  • “Two centuries later the seat of the diocese was moved from Sherborne to Wells.” This makes it sound like the seat of the diocese was already being discussed. Maybe better to say: “Two centuries later the seat of the diocese was established at Wells, having previously been located at Sherborne.”Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Diocese of Sherbourne has already been mentioned. I have added the date that the diocese moved to Wells, 909. AJM
  • Fixed AJM
  • “At this time a choir of boys was established to sing the liturgy.” I’d say “around this time” or "during this time" instead of “at this time”, because Athelm and Dunstan were presumably not Archbishop at the same time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed AJM

Regarding the "Seat of the Bishop" subsection:

  • “It was designed in the new style with pointed arches, later known as Gothic, and introduced at about the same time at Canterbury Cathedral.” Instead of “and”, how about “a style”? Otherwise it sounds like you’re saying that Wells Cathedral was introduced at about the same time at Canterbury Cathedral.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed by the removal of a comma. AJM
  • “The church was largely complete at the time of its dedication in 1239.” If this sentence is out of chronological order, perhaps rewrite to “The church would not be completed until soon after its dedication in 1239?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: The first paragraph in the section summarises the building of the cathedral. The rest of the section is about the to-ing and fro-ing. The beginning/end dates are now in the same sentence. AJM
  • “In 1197 Bishop Reginald's successor, Bishop Savaric FitzGeldewin, with the approval of Pope Celestine III, officially moved his seat to Glastonbury Abbey, but the monks there would not accept their new Bishop of Glastonbury and the title of Bishop of Bath and Glastonbury was used until the Glastonbury claim was abandoned in 1219.” This is a long sentence, and somewhat confusing. Maybe split up and clarify. Did Savaric stay in Glastonbury even though he was unwelcome? Why didn't they like him?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed: The problem, as far as I can see, is that they objected to his title and he was forced to change it. I have dropped the "objection" bit as it is not really important to the Wells situation. AJM
  • Response: The church is the church. That's the bit that gets dedicated. Fixed the Jocelin matter. AJM
  • “The delay may have been a result of inaction by Pandulf Masca, a Roman ecclesiastical politician, papal legate to England and Bishop of Norwich, who was asked by the pope to investigate the situation but did not respond.” Because he was lazy, or received insufficient bribes, or hated Jocelin’s guts, or for unknown reasons?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • “In 1245 the church became Wells Cathedral and the title ‘Bishop of Bath and Wells’ was granted to Jocelin's successors by a papal ruling of 3 January 1245.” Did the papal ruling make it a cathedral? If not, what did? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have looked back at Dunning who confirms the title becoming Bishop of Bath and Wells in 1245, but doesn't give the date of 3 January which is included in the article. Various sources (examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here) discuss the ongoing "conflict" between Wells and Glastonbury (and to a lesser extent Bath) but perhaps the clearest explanation is here. None of the sources give that exact date. Perhaps 3 January should be removed and the sentence replaced with "In 1245 the ongoing dispute over the title of the bishop was resolved by a ruling of Pope Innocent IV and thereafter known as the Bishop of Bath and Wells."— Rod talk 10:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is that papal ruling also what designated Wells as a "cathedral"? I'm curious what designated Wells as a "cathedral".Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Malden (1947) "Wells was raised to the dignity of a cathedral church in 909" (p28). The new building was "reconsecrated on Saint Romanus's day (probably 23 October) 1239. (p32) So it looks as if it had cathedral status since 909 even though the Bishops title featured Glastonbury or Bath in later years (see Bishop of Bath and Wells).— Rod talk 16:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Wikipedia article cathedral: "The removal of a bishop's cathedra from a church deprives that church of its cathedral dignity, although often the name is retained in popular use, as for example former cathedrals acquired by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland (which lacks episcopal structure). Technically, such churches are proto-cathedrals." Accordingly, I think this confusion could all be cleared up by inserting a parenthetical into the lead sentence of this Wikipedia article: "Wells Cathedral is a Church of England cathedral in Wells, Somerset, England, dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle, and is the seat ("cathedra") of the Bishop of Bath and Wells." Then people will understand that it was a cathedral when and only when the bishop's seat was there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Colchester (1987) supports the original date with c.909 & then discusses the transference of the see from Wells to Bath being linked to the Council of London in 1075 but argues (based on the writing of Polydore Virgil in 1534) it was probably another Council of London, this time in 1078, which decided that the seat was "entirely a matter for the bishop". He talks about the rebuilding by Robert of Lewes which was "consecrated and dedicated jointly by him and the bishops of Salisbury, Worcester and Hereford in 1148. Saying he produced statutes (later the Statuta Antique) and had a full complement of dignitaries, canons, prebendaries, vicars choral and choristers (+ schools) at that point. After the Interdict of 1208 & the bishops leaving, work resumed in 1213. In 1219 Jocelyn surrendered his title to Glastonbury Abbey & applied to the pope for Wells to be given full cathedral status. The papal legate, Pandulf, was asked to investigate whether Wells had previously been a cathedral. He "did nothing" & it wasn't until 1245 that Innocent IV authorised bishop Roger to adopt the title of Bishop of Bath & Wells. Colchester doesn't say explicitly that cathedral status went with the title. I would have no objection to your parenthetical insertion but having the word cathedral twice in the same sentence may not be welcomed by others? — Rod talk 17:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the word I would insert is "cathedra" rather than "cathedral".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of further comments I have revised the sentence re 1245 & added ("cathedra").— Rod talk 17:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response: the "cathedral" isn't the "cathedra" even though it is referred to as "the seat of the bishop" . "The seat" is used in the same way in referring to the estate of a temporal lord. To get around the little problem, I have added a sentence of useful explanation, which doesn't muddy-up an otherwise reasonable lead sentence by repeating the word "cathedral" yet again (in the same sentence). Amandajm (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The first two sentences of the article are looking good, but I would like to suggest some minor tweaks. The first instance of "cathedral" is not wikilinked, and instead of doing so it might be best to instead use the word "building" like so: "Wells Cathedral is a Church of England cathedral building in Wells, Somerset, England, dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle, and is the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. As with other cathedrals churches, its title status as a cathedral is dependent on it its role as the central church of a diocese and on the fact that it contains the throne (cathedra) of a bishop."Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-specialist, the second sentence now reads very oddly to me. I can't quite see what it is trying to tell the reader: that it contains a throne and is a central diocese church? (if so, why not just say so directly) That it is the same as all other cathedrals? (not an unusual fact) That sometimes it isn't, or hasn't been, a cathedral? I'm not at all sure that this detail really belongs in the lead (NB: my usual rule of thumb is to imagine you're talking to a mate at the pub. "Tell me something about Wells Cathedral," he says. Would we really start off by telling him about this aspect of it, rather than when it was first built or about its architecture etc.?) Hchc2009 (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might indeed be worthwhile to combine the first and second sentences, e.g. like this: "Wells Cathedral is a Church of England building in Wells, Somerset dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle, and housing the seat ('cathedra') of the Bishop of Bath and Wells." This would avoid repetitive use of the word "cathedral", would educate readers immediately about the meaning of a cathedral, and would make them aware as they read the article that Wells was a cathedral when and only when the bishop was seated there. If the word "housing" is not preferred, then "including" or "containing" would work too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response:
  • Hchc2009, I can't understand why you are having trouble with the following sentence:
As with other cathedrals, its title is dependent on its role as the central church of a diocese and the fact that it contains the throne (cathedra) of a bishop.
Those people who are familiar with the correct meaning of "cathedral" know immediately by the name of the building that it is the central church of a diocese, and that it contains the throne of a bishop. They don't need to be told those two things.
The second sentence explains why rather than repeating the facts. It is called "Cathedral" because of these two facts that have already been indicated (but not stated) in the first sentence.
  • Anythingyouwant, sorry, but that all read rather badly, particularly "and is where the seat ("cathedra") of the Bishop of Bath and Wells is located."
As I have already explained, the "seat" of the bishop is his cathedral. His "throne" (the actual object) is a "cathedra". You cannot describe his throne as "cathedral" and you cannot describe his "seat" as "cathedra". Wells Cathedral is the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells.
I have returned the sentence, slightly reduced: "As with other cathedrals, it has the role of central church of a diocese and contains the throne (cathedra) of a bishop."
I have maintained the link to cathedral in this sentence, so that the three definitions: cathedral, diocese and cathedra, are all together. some people might use all three all three, and others will need none. Having "cathedral" linked in the previous sentence simply looses itself alongside the more specific links.
Amandajm (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comments above, it isn't clear to me what the sentence is trying to emphasise. If the intent is to explain why it is called a cathedral, I'm not convinced that this is the right place for it. I simply don't think that most readers' immediate question on starting the article would be to ask "why is Wells Cathedral called a cathedral", particularly since the reason it is called a cathedral is no different from any other cathedral in England.
For comparison, you probably wouldn't, say, start off an article on, e.g. "St Mary Church, Littlevillage", by saying "St Mary's Church lies in Littlevillage, South England. As with other churches, it is a centre of worship for the local Christian community." I quite like Anythingyouwant's proposal, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hchc2009, in order to reach an acceptable compromise, how about making the second sentence more specific to this church? Like so: "Wells Cathedral is a Church of England building in Wells, Somerset dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle, and is the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. As with other cathedrals, it is the central church of a diocese — here the Diocese of Bath and Wells — and contains the bishop's throne (cathedra)."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're still drawing the reader away from the key information in the second sentence, which isn't great for the lead. I'd recommend: "Wells Cathedral is a Church of England building in Wells, Somerset dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle. It is the central church of the Diocese of Bath and Wells, the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells and contains the bishop's throne (cathedra)." That would focus the reader on the article in hand, rather than cathedrals in general, and means that the second sentence starts off with a clear, positive statement rather than a comparative one. By moving the bishop bit to the second sentence, you would also be grouping the three related pieces of information into a single sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, though I'd insert the word "is" before the words "the seat".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Re wording proposed by Hchc2009, No.
"building" isn't adequate. A "cathedral" is far more than a building. The fact of it being a "cathedral" implies a specific function (which the reader either does or doesn't immediately comprehend from the word alone). "Cathedral" isn't just about "building" as in "structure". It is about what goes on there. You might as well say "The White House is a building in the US."
The fact that it is the "seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells" is first sentence material. This is made all the more important by the fact that the cathedral is called "Wells" but the Bishop is styled "Bath and Wells".
The repetition of "Bath and Wells" in the next sentence is clumsy.
The second sentence can be omitted altogether, except that it is useful for the many readers who really don't know what a cathedral is. There are a lot of people out there that think a cathedral is just a "big church" and will argue that fact, because it is a definition that is include in some dictionaries as a vernacular use of the word. We can leave out the words "As with other cathedrals" but this defeats the purpose. The only reason for the second sentence is to serve those people who don't fully comprehend what a constitutes a cathedral. All the people who do know what a cathedral is, know already that it is the central church of the Diocese of Bath and Wells and contains the bishop's throne. How do they know that? They know it because the first sentence says it is the seat of the bishop of Bath and Wells, and that is all the information that a person who already "in the know" requires.
I would prefer to leave the phrase "as with other cathedrals" because, in the span of four words, it conveys a great deal of information to the "unchurched". The notion of "cathedral" may seem simple but is not as straightforward as it appears. You could begin the second sentence with the words "By definition a cathedral is a church where blah blah blah..." but that seems to be overkill.
Amandajm (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will boldly change "as with other cathedrals" to "as with most other cathedrals". Per the Wikipedia article cathedral: "The removal of a bishop's cathedra from a church deprives that church of its cathedral dignity, although often the name is retained in popular use, as for example former cathedrals acquired by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland (which lacks episcopal structure)." By inserting the word "most", the sentence will become much more appropriate and useful, by distinguishing this cathedral from, e.g., cathedrals acquired by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That got reverted. Oh well. I still think the sentence is acceptable, especially because it includes a piped link to the Diocese of Bath and Wells.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response, the only reason why there exist a few non-cathedrals that are still known as "cathedral" is because they previously functioned as cathedrals and held the seats of bishops. It's an historical hang-over. Yes, the piped link is good there. AJM
  • Done; It's linked a little further up under "Early years". AJM

I will take a break now, and see what you think. All of the above are fairly small points, which is why I have already supported FA status for this article. But still they may possibly improve the article even more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, do you consider this to have been helpful and/or tolerable? If so, I can proceed with the rest of the article. Unless you prefer, I will not strike out resolved points.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, helpful! Go ahead, if you have the time. The matter that Rod needs to look at is tagged with his name, so he will find it. I don't think you need to strike out the rest, unless this is some rule. It doesn't do to break the rules. Do you really want Rod to get an answer on this "papal legate" thing, or is it sufficient to look at the current news and know that papal legates have not changed much in 1000 years? Amandajm (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's against some rule then maybe someone will point it out. Anyway, the sentence is: "The delay may have been a result of inaction by Pandulf Masca, a Roman ecclesiastical politician, papal legate to England and Bishop of Norwich, who was asked by the pope to investigate the situation but did not respond." I would have thought that when the pope asks for something from an underling, he gets it, but maybe I'm missing something.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three comments about territory already covered, plus comments about the rest of the "History" section:

  • “In 1197 Bishop Reginald's successor, Bishop Savaric FitzGeldewin, with the approval of Pope Celestine III, officially moved his seat to Glastonbury Abbey, and the title of Bishop of Bath and Glastonbury was used until the Glastonbury claim was abandoned in 1219.” One-sentence paragraphs are suspect, and this one can easily be split in two.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Done
  • “The building which was begun by Bishop Reginald Fitz Jocelin in the 12th century continued under Jocelin of Wells, who was a canon from 1200, then bishop from 1206.” This is somewhat redundant to the earlier sentence: “Bishop Jocelin continued the building campaign begun by Bishop Reginald….” I would move the dates into the earlier sentence and remove the rest, so that the “Construction” subsection starts with “Adam Locke….”Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Removed all but the first half-sentence to the second section.
  • I think "Diocese of Sherborne" ought to become "diocese of Sherborne" with both words wikilinked, and "diocese" not capitalized. This is the first occurrence of both terms, so I think it would be helpful for them both to be wikilinked. Also, the phrase is often spelled without a capital "D"'[3] which seems apt here if the two words are wikilinked separately.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. "diocese" is now linked in the lead. "Diocese of Sherborne" is correct. It is now linked to Bishop of Sherborne because that article contains info on the now-defunct diocese. (It is part of the Diocese of Salisbury, but has a bishop.)
  • “Adam Locke was master mason from about 1192, perhaps succeeded by Elias of Dereham in 1229.” I don’t see the date “1229” in the cited source, and perhaps it’s best to leave out stuff that is “perhaps” true (but keeping stuff that is probably true).Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know where the date 1229 came from. My assessment is that it is "probably" true that Elias of Dereham had a hand in it somewhere, but I don't know what he did. Unless it was the vault. The vault is very very similar to that of Salisbury and is absolutely the only part of Wells Cathedral that isn't a little eccentric.
Fixed, I removed it. Amandajm (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • “He built Vicars' Close and the Vicars' Hall, to give the men of the choir a secure place to live and dine, away from the town and its temptations.” I gather this refers to the vicars who chant services several times a day. Unlike in the previous sentence, the word “choir” is used here in the usual musical way. I would make this clearer, e.g. by saying “the vicars who chant in the choir” instead of “the men of the choir”.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed AJM
  • Fixed AJM
  • Yes. The building looks pretty much the same, but the fittings have changed considerably, including the insertion of a massive organ, the installation of an altar in the nave, the choir stalls greatly changed etc. AJM
  • “From 1508 to 1546, the eminent Italian humanist scholar Polydore Vergil was active as the chapter's representative in London.” This intrigues me. Was it a fulltime job? Did each cathedral in England have a representative in London? Why is the year 1534 glossed over? Isn’t that when the Church of England broke from Rome and the Pope? Why did this Italian guy keep serving even after 1534?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need Rod for this one.
Polydore Vergil was an Italian who came to Britain as the emissary of the pope and was invited by the English court to write a history. According to this paper he may have been related to Adriano Castellesi and is sometimes described as his assistant as the popes representative & collectors of payments due (Peter's Pence). He is described as a proxy at the enthronement but exactly which of them acted as Bishop on a day to day basis is unclear. This source (p 77) suggests he lived most of his time in London and was the representative for Bath & Wells at the Convocations of Canterbury and York, possibly after 1518 when the bishopric was transfered to Thomas Wolsey In commendam.— Rod talk 16:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestions can be put forward by the bishop and his advisors but the appointment goes through a complex selection process and is ultimately by the Crown.
  • Presumably from Bridgwater which is about 20 miles from Wells. Having looked harder at the wording, it is possible that he was initially imprisoned elsewhere, then brought to Wells.
Rod, I need help here! Amandajm (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Walter Raleigh (priest) it says he was initially imprisoned in his house at Chedzoy, then Ilchester and Banwell before he "was brought back to the deanery at Wells". This tally's with the source (DNB at wikisource). See also here and here (NB with double "T" in Barrett).— Rod talk 16:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • “was appointed dean and served as the bishop for two years before his death in 1672.” Insert “then” before “served”? Also, the ensuing sentences discuss things Creighton did before his death, so maybe the stuff about his death should be later in the paragraph, to keep things chronological.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Fix, "fabric" has gone. Bathurst in in. AJM
  • By the Crown.
  • “He was one of seven bishops imprisoned for refusing to sign King James II's ‘Declaration of Indulgence’….” I like the word “King” here. Can this be done throughout the Wikipedia article (e.g. “King Charles I”, “King Charles II”)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Ken refused to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary because James II had not abdicated….” So let me get this straight; Bishop Ken was convicted for defying James II, but later was fired for his loyalty to the very same James II? Maybe that irony should be explicitly noted as such.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was on account of his oath, not on account of any personal loyalty. Amandajm (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: King William and Queen Mary, they are usually corporately known as "William and Mary" and nobody bothers about the numbers, because they are distinct, as "William and Mary", but Wiiiliam on his own is referred to as William III, King Billy, and by a great number of other names that are not so polite, depending on where one is coming from.
  • Rod, should we indulge this person by adding "King" to Henry VIII and Chas I etc? AJM
  • Not wanting to intrude on the good work going on, but, ... Bishop's Palace, Wells is already mentioned and wikilinked in the Seat of the bishop section. Yes it still exists and has been the house and office of the Bishop for hundreds of years. There is some current controversy about the next bishop (to be enthroned in 2014) who will have his office at the palace but will get another residence in the city.— Rod talk 10:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my mistake. I think my "find" function is case sensitive, so it overlooked "Palace" with a capital"P".Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • “The late 20th century saw an extensive restoration programme on the fabric of the building….” Presumably “fabric” does not refer to cloth. What is the difference between “the fabric of the building” and “the building”? (Also see five comments up discussing "fabric".)Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, Ok! Fabric can go. It's conservation jargon. It means that the stone, mortar, lead and glass are being repaired. But what it meant in the Victorian era, and still too often today is that stuff is being extensively replaced. Amandajm (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • “The cathedral is the venue for musical events including an annual concert by the Somerset Chamber Choir.” This could be moved into the section about “Music” or alternatively its tense can be changed to fit better in this “History” section (e.g. “The cathedral has been the venue…”).Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done But I think that more work is probably needed on these two sections. AJM.

User:Amandajm, would you prefer that I keep going to the end, or would you like to deal with the above comments first?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am back at it again now, not sure how far I'll get.

  • "Wells has been described as 'the most poetic of the English cathedrals'.[11]" I request that the person quoted be named inline. Whether in passive or active voice, I think it's always preferable when offering a quote to say who said it. I know people can just go look at the footnote, but that really shouldn't be necessary, and anyway, the way it's written now, the reader could infer that Clifton-Taylor was quoting someone else rather than making his own statement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I don't want to go down the "according to architectural historian with the double-barrelled name" line at the end of that section, So I fixed it by adding an even more quote. The homesite says it's possibly the most beeyootiful. Only "possibly". But two quotes are better than one, and excuses me from saying who said either of them. Amandajm (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Its governing body is the chapter which is made up of five clerical canons….” How about: "Its governing body — the chapter — is made up of five clerical canons…." That seems like a preferable sentence structure given the previous mention of the chapter ("On acquiring cathedral status, in common with other such cathedrals, it had four chief clergy, the dean, precentor, chancellor and sacristan, who were responsible for the spiritual and material care of the cathedral").Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • “ The chapter is advised by specialist architects and archaeologists and committees focusing on the fabric and finance.[71]“ The series of two ands is confusing, and it's unclear who does the "focusing". How about: "The chapter is advised by specialist architects and archaeologists, and also receives advice from committees focusing on the fabric and finance"? (Also, this is now the only mention in the article about "fabric" and so you might want to briefly explain that term if it means something other than cloth.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • “More than a thousand services are held each year, including daily services: Matins, Holy Communion and Choral Evensong[74] and major celebrations of Christian festivals.[75]” There needs to be a clearer separation between the daily services and the major celebrations. This can be done various ways (using parentheses, or dashes, or a semicolon, etc.) but the way it is now makes it look like “major celebrations” is included in a list of daily services.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • “The cathedral is also used for the baptisms, weddings and funerals of those with close connections to it.[76]“ Maybe clarify by adding: “especially those who live on the few streets surrounding the Cathedral”.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed (during school terms)
  • Done
  • “running costs which were around £2 million per year in 2010”. I must respectfully request a dollar equivalent, not because I am an American, but because a dollar equivalent would allow many more people to understand the running costs. This is not a request that some Wikipedians would want to grant, so feel free to ignore this comment if you'd like. If you don't ignore it, it would be sufficient to mention the exchange rate in a footnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to finish tomorrow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: To save time, I will make relatively small or uncontroversial edits directly, but put more substantial issues into comments below. Of course, if I mess up any edits, please feel free to revert.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Wells has been variously described as "perhaps the most beautiful",[11] and as "the most poetic" of the great English cathedrals.[12]" Footnote 11 is to the cathedral's own website! Much better to instead cite a neutral and reliable source: "Wells has been variously described as "unquestionably one of the most beautiful of English cathedrals"<ref>Oggins, Robin. ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=DtS2iD79NgEC&pg=PA42 Cathedrals]'', p. 42 (Sterling Publishing Company 1996).</ref> and as "the most poetic" of the great English cathedrals.{{sfn|Clifton-Taylor|1967|p=274}}Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent AJM
  • "Wells is the first cathedral in England to be, from its foundation, built in the Gothic style. According to art historian John Harvey, it is the first truly Gothic cathedral in the world, its architects having entirely dispensed with all the features that bound the contemporary east end of Canterbury Cathedral and the earlier buildings of France, such as the east end of the Abbey of Saint Denis, to the Romanesque.[12]" If it was the first Gothic cathedral in the world, then obviously it was the first Gothic cathedral in England. So, I'd delete the first sentence here ("Wells is the first cathedral...."). Also, I would put "such as the east end of the Abbey of Saint Denis" into a parenthetical or delete it, so that it does not interrupt the sentence so much.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two different points being made here. The first point is that it was actually begun during this period. At Canterbury, where the work is contemporary, they were rebuilding an existent building, starting at the east. At Lincoln they were rebuilding the cathedral after a recent fire in which the greater part was lost. Only two other English cathedrals were actually begun in the Gothic style, Lichfield Cathedral which is just a little later, and Salisbury Cathedral 1220, where the monks abandoned their church on the hill at Old Sarum and rebuilt on the plain.
  • The second statement, that it is the first truly Gothic cathedral in the world is a qualitative assessment. There was no clear-cut shift from Romanesque architecture to Gothic. Gothic features such as the ribbed vault, the pointed arch and the flying buttress had all been employed at Durham Cathedral (which was extremely innovative). Yet Durham remains beyond question Romanesque in character. Inside Durham one has the most overwhelming sense of the mass of the building and its various parts. As Gothic developed in France, many of the features were employed by Abbot Suger at the Basilica of Saint Denis, and are also seen at Noyon Cathedral. Noyon is often cited as the first Gothic cathedral. But the point that Harvey and Swaan make is that Wells has thrown off any hint of Romanesque character. It doesn't feel like a transition from Romanesque to Gothic (as St Denis, Noyon and Canterbury do). It feels like a new invention. Yet it was begun in the late 12th century, at a time when at Peterborough Cathedral the Norman nave was still under construction. It is almost impossible to look at the nave at Peterborough and think of it as contemporary with the western part of the choir at Wells. Peterbro has everything that a Norman nave should have, including stout cylindrical piers, paired openings set in arches, and zig-zaggy ornament at the borders. There are a lot of things about Wells Cathedral which show a mind-boggling originality. The naves of Lincoln and Salisbury, both renowned for the beauty of their proportions and the massing of parts, were begun 25-30 years after Wells, but neither is as original, or as free from Romanesque origins as is Wells. Amandajm (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In about 1310 work commenced on the Lady Chapel, to the design of Thomas Witney, who also built the central tower from 1315 to 1322 in the Decorated Gothic style.[38] It was later braced internally with arches by William Joy." Which was later braced, the Lady Chapel or the central tower?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed AJM
  • "The sculptures occupy nine architectural zones which stretch horizontally across the entire west front and around the sides and the eastern returns of the towers where they project beyond the aisles." What projects, the towers, the returns, the zones, or the sculptures?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed AJM
  • "The niches in the lowest zone of the gable contain nine angels, of which Cockerell identifies Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel.[104] In the next zone are the taller figures of the twelve apostles, some, such as John, Andrew and Bartholomew, clearly identifiable by the attributes that they carry.[105]" Maybe wikilink the named angels, and the named apostles? Also, is this a technical use of the word "attribute"? Usually (in the U.S. anyway), one speaks of having an attribute rather than carrying an attribute.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: In the case of images of saints and the like, they literally carry their "attributes" which signify who they are. Bartholomew carries his flayed skin, Dennis carries his head, and Agatha carries her breasts on a platter.
  • "The north porch is described by art historian Nikolaus Pevsner as "sumptuously decorated", and intended to be the main entrance.[85] Externally it is a simple rectangular building with plain side walls." If the North Porch was intended to be the main entrance, has it ever been used as such? Also, calling the North Porch a "building" gives the impression that it is a separate structure, but is it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed The structure isn't separate. It adjoins the cathedral.
It was probably in frequent use as an entrance until Vicars Close was built and Chain Gate was constructed which has a bridge over the road and into the cathedral via the Chapter House steps. I believe that it now contains a noticeboard directing people to a different entrance.
We need Rod on this one]]. AJM
The last time I visited (a few months ago) the porch was being used as an entrance by staff, but it did have a sign directed the public to the other entrance where a donation is suggested and guides etc are available.— Rod talk 20:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's not. The transom is a horizontal bar in the window. A "light" in this sense is similar to the way that it is used in the expression "transom light" in that it is a window opening. In a medieval window, the "lights" are the long vertical openings. A four-light window has four long vertical openings. In a window that is in the Perpendicular Gothic style, these are commonly divided by horizontal transoms. I know that this seems a totally confusing notion of horizontal and vertical, but the fact is that Lancet and Geometric windows do not have horizontals, only verticals, and Perpendicular windows are distinguished in part by their horizontals. OK! It won't surprise you to discover that only the English did "Perpendicular Gothic". The others just happied themselves with "Flamboyant Gothic".
Confused? "Lights" should be linked, but I don't know what to link it to. Amandajm (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't have a clue, so I deleted it. AJM
  • Fixed removed the first inst. changed "the" to "a". It's not Biblical. The claim to fame is that this is by far the most famous sculptural group on the Wells capitals, easily the best known in England. Amandajm (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the carvings at Wells is atypical as it has wings and appears to be wearing clothes.[121]" In the whole cathedral, there's only one atypical carving? If so, then clarify that fact, plus say where it's located. But if not then rephrase.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. It is doubtful that it is a Sheela N Gig but people want to think that it is.
  • "In the 15th century Vicars' Close was built to house the men, and provided a chapel and communal facilities that isolated them from the "worldly temptations" of the town." Can this be shortened or removed? It seems redundant to earlier material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gone
  • The main thing is to mention them, and more info about them is not necessary. The Cathedral gets its name from them, and they're located on cathedral grounds, so they really should be mentioned, if only briefly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done for now. I haven't scrutinized the image captions, the notes, or the footnotes, but have otherwise read and commented from top to bottom.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant, I knew you weren't going to get away with that Americanism; it's been spotted and reverted already. You might as well try letting a wombat loose at Lord's.
Some other on-the-ball editor picked up the fact that weddings are not "private". Of course they are not! Otherwise no-one could run in and halt the wedding by shouting "I object!" the way the brother-in-law did in Jane Eyre. Very good! Amandajm (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I supported this article for FA above, and then (paradoxically) made a boatload of comments. I am satisfied that those comments have been satisfactorily addressed (even though I'm too lazy to cross each of them out). And I still support FA.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- has anyone performed a dedicated source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose (talk) I believe that it was done in part. I am sure that since then I have added references that have not been formatted in the same manner as the others. Amandajm (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well then we'd better have a formal check; will list request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Ref 2 is not an online source, so retrieval date irrelevant
  • Ref 3 should be dated
  • Ref 21: Why is this source high quality/reliable? It is created by "Two people, whose hobby has evolved into something of a passion for recording the diverse heritage of Britain", which is commendable but not necessarily scholarly.
  • Ref 22: Is a 100-year-old encyclopedia entry the best source for this information?
  • Ref 23: Paging should be 243–44
  • Ref 37: Source unclear – publisher? date?
  • Ref 43: Origin of source unclear – it apppears to be publicity material for the City of Wells
  • I've found several sources saying the same thing but similar levels of reliability eg This I don't think these two sentences are vital for the article about the cathedral so could be removed if people think that is appropriate?— Rod talk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 56 not properly formatted (see 32 for correct format of ODNB source)
  • Ref 63: give full details of source; "Project Canterbury" is merely the facilitator
  • Ref 65: You give the publicaion location here, but not generally. Consistency necessary
  • Ref 67: Page range format (and ndash required, not hyphen)
  • Ref 69: This is an advertisement: unnecessary as info alrady cited elsewhere
  • Ref 83: Publisher missing (Western Daily Press)
  • Ref 84: Page range format
  • Ref 89: Give publisher's full name rather than initiala JBAA
  • Ref 91: Why is this source high quality/reliable?
  • The sentence in your text which is cited to the quarry history reads: "The west front is 100 feet (30 m) high and 150 feet (46 m) wide, and built of Inferior Oolite of the Middle Jurassic period, which came from the Doulting Stone Quarry, about 8 miles (13 km) to the east." Only some of this information (the bolded bits) is in the quarry history. It can be accepted as reliable for those details, and I don't think the 8-mile distance is important, but the measurements, which I can't immediately relate to what's in the infobox, need to be cited to somewhere else. Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 93: add (subscription required) tag
  • Ref 95: Irregularly formatted. Also, "Harvey" requires a year
  • Ref 114: archive link broken
  • Ref 122: looks like a private project rather than a quality source
  • Certainly the source looks comprehensive, but it does not come from a learned institution. It may be the work of an enthusiastic amateur. The only information cited to this source concerns the atypical Sheel Na Gig at Wells – is this information verifiable by a more formal source? Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several sources for the likely presence of Sheelas however I can't find any better sources for the "atypical" claim and therefore have removed that sentence.— Rod talk 10:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of these things that has been claimed to be a Sheela Na Gig almost certainly isn't. But people want to find them. They get dreadfully excited about the notion of a sculpture of a female exposing her genitals. If we leave them out altogether, you can be sure someone will come along and put them in. Amandajm (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise , when I commented here that the reference to it probably not being a Sheela was the one that had been removed. Let me emphasise that the the carving almost certainly is not a Sheela, and regardless of the quality of the reference, the writer has obviously looked at it considerably harder than the authors of the two sources that say there are two of them. I think that they question of uncertainty should be returned to the article. Amandajm (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 129: link unnecessary in short citations
  • Link moved to bibliography
  • Ref 137 returns "page not found"
  • Ref 146: as with ref 2, retrieval date irrelevant
  • In the bibliography:
  • the Cox book lacks publisher information
  • In referencing books with multiple authors, be consistent in citation formats e.g "Tatton-Brown & Crook" v. "Wade"

No spotchecks done. Other than as noted, the sources look of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review: One of the most impressive uses of images I've seen on an article. I believe I counted around 55 in all, checked each one. Sourcing is a mix between nom's own work, clearly free use from other users, and the geograph project, all of which are fine. My only nitpick is that the last organ image seems rather out of place bunched in with the bibliography. Is there a better spot in the article to place it? Wizardman 04:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of like that one way down there. It's kind of like...one more for the road. If there's a better spot then I wouldn't object to that either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman, you have to admit that the "Nom" did a brilliant job with those images, having been hounded from ten thousand miles away to go back there on some winter's morning that wasn't raining, stand on his car and take shots over the wall. (His collaborator had checked the best position on Google Earth.) He was then obliged to crawl around on the floor under the stalls to get the misericords (the seats don't tilt properly because of the cushions.) Then he came up with the idyllic shot taken over the pond in the Bishop's garden, with the reflection and two duckies... probably the most beautiful photo of Wells Cathedral taken for the last hundred years..... knocked on the head as a Fine Image by Wikimedia Commons because it was a slightly misty winter morning and the building wasn't quite "sharp"..... you can't win them all! Incidentally, I'm still not satisfied. I want Rod to photograph the boss on the right hand side of the door into the undercroft. I have a close personal connection with that piece of carving.
And I am glad that you like the use of the images. It is a lot of hard work putting them together in series that work well as groups. Sometimes it means a lot of cropping.
Amandajm (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • You guys have some duplicate links that may be justified by the length of the article but pls review in any case -- this script highlights them.
  • Regarding citations, I note that in some places you're citing every sentence, even when the source is identical for each statement and you could therefore get by with the one citation at the end. If this is deliberate, say to make things more precise in case further info is added subsequently, fair enough, but I'd like to know that's the case as IMO it does clutter things a bit.
  • There have been so many challenges on this article it is easiest to cite everything, particular as with multiple editors it does deal with the additions of extra information as you suggest.— Rod talk 09:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, despite the density of sourcing in most areas, there are some uncited sentences. Now admittedly a basic physical description like "Buildings in Vicars' Close include the Vicars Hall and gateway at the south end, and the Vicars Chapel and Library at the north end" is unlikely to be challenged, but an earlier statement that "It was restored and extended by Benjamin Ferrey between 1846 and 1854" is historical info and does need sourcing. It's just simpler to ensure there's a citation at least at the end of every paragraph, which also goes for the second para under Clock and the solitary para under Bells.
  • Well I think it's up to the nominators to search for any further instances when a problem is pointed out but in this case I think I caught all of them; citations are one of the things I always double-check as a delegate/coordinator, prior to promotion -- thank you for responding promptly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wells_Cathedral/archive1&oldid=1138475326"