Talk:All Saints' Church, Southampton
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | All Saints' Church, Southampton has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: April 8, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from All Saints' Church, Southampton appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 April 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:All Saints' Church, Southampton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Will review. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 09:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Lead
[edit]- We typically do not keep citations in the lead unless we make some significant claims. Make sure you have added them all in the main text (after the lead).
- Slightly expand the lead.
History
[edit]- Henry II granted the land to the monks of St. Denys Priory Let this not look like a continuation from the lead. It would be good to say "the land on which the All Saints' Church stood" or the like.
- Add a word on who Henry II was.
- Ref. 1 can be added directly to the end of the 3rd line it is the source for.
- in the Spring of 1792 Why is it "S" and not "s"?
- and work begun on its replacement I would like to begin a new sentence from here.
- The latter paras are short and many, giving the article a choppy look. Can we combine a few of them, or use subsections?
Done - I've made the "Interior" and "Exterior" sections into subsections of a new "Architecture" section which hopefully resolves this. WaggersTALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- That is better, but the paras of "History" are also many and short. Can we have a similar solution for this? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done - I've combined some of the previous shorter paragraphs and added subheadings, breaking the history into centuries, which hopefully makes it easier to read. WaggersTALK 15:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- and went on to become Bishop of Killaloe and Kilfenora, Bishop of Down and Connor and subsequently Bishop of Down, Connor and Dromore Appears irrelevant to the article.
- Agreed; I've removed the extraneous detail. I'd like the article to be clear that the first rector of the church wasn't the same Richard Mant that became the bishop (as we have an article on the latter) so hopefully the revised sentence hits the right balance. WaggersTALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, better! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- The church building was subsequently demolished When?
- Good question! It's proved difficult to find a source that provides an answer. Most sources state or imply the building was destroyed in the 1940 bombing but source #1 says "in August 1944, with demolition of the ruin awaited...", indicating there was more demolition to be done. But I can't find a source that states when that work was done. I've adjusted the sentence in the article to be clear it's the ruins that were demolished; most of the building was already gone.
- Hmm... We should not venture into any guessing then. Can we add a few words so that it is clear to the reader that we do not know the date for certain? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- and despite being charred "and, despite being charred"
Exterior
[edit]- Who was Reveley?
- Done - I've added a little more detail. WaggersTALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Because the north side adjoined the neighbouring buildings it had no windows "It had no windows because the north side adjoined the neighbouring buildings".
- Exterior and Interior sections could be combined into a single section, Architecture.
Sources
[edit]- Is "find a grave" a reliable source?
- Probably not; now replaced with a more reliable reference. Done WaggersTALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Probably not; now replaced with a more reliable reference.
- The Internet archive source is not properly formatted. Firstly, it is a journal volume, so use Template:Cite journal. You will need to specify the article you refer to and its page range in this.
- Page range for ref. 11?
- You need to fill more parameters of Template:Cite book for ref. 2
That should be it. These done, I would be happy to promote this. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks Sainsf, hopefully I've now address those to your satisfaction. WaggersTALK 10:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Waggers for your friendly response. We have only a little bit to go. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks again Sainsf, how does it look now? WaggersTALK 15:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Awesome Waggers! I believe the article is ready for promotion. Great job! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)