# Talk:St Mary's Church, Astbury

As far as I know the ring has been enlarged by another 2 bells (late 1990s) to form a major of 8 bells. -- Ipwaz2003 (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? It would be good to add it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have made a small addition to deal with this but would prefer to have more details and dates from a better source. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The history section would greatly benefit from an introductory sentence "The origins of the church are unclear..." (or something similar), which sets the tone for the next two sentences. Otherwise, the prose just dumps us in mid-stream as it were...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:St Mary's Church, Astbury/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SilkTork *YES! 02:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice looking article. I'll take a look over the next few days, and then start to leave comments. SilkTork *YES! 02:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Comments
I'll put comments and observations here as I am reading. The comments will be general, and may not relate to the GA criteria. SilkTork *YES! 16:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The source says that Domesday recorded a priest but not a church. SilkTork *YES! 16:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, don't know how I got that wrong!  I've re-written the first two sentences.  Do they make sense? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I've played with it a bit more. It will be played with a bit more by others over time. However, yes, I think it makes sense. SilkTork *YES! 16:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The WP:Lead could be built a little more - George Gilbert Scott and Sir William Brereton's Roundheads could be mentioned. SilkTork *YES! 16:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the Present day section up, and renamed it Location as that seemed more appropriate and in keeping with other articles on places and churches. Why are there so many cites for the basic details in that section - is there some dispute about its location and the children's groups? SilkTork *YES! 17:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
One of the citations for the locations is different from the other two; it leads you directly to a map of the location.  I know you can do that via the coordinates, but this gives a one-click link to the map.  The other two lead to offline sources.  Neither says precisely what the sentence says (although of course you are not to know that), so both references are given.  The links to the church activities are there because of the design of the website; each citation leads to the precise item in the article (is that not how it should be?).  I know it is a fault to have insufficient citations, but to have full and comprehensive citations? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Why is there a note about the Heritage Gateway website in the reference section? The website itself gives this information, and we don't normally qualify sources in the article text. The source should stand by itself. SilkTork *YES! 17:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry you don't understand what has happened here.  When giving a reference you have to include the publisher of the source.  In the case of Heritage Gateway there are three publishers.  In the article there are six different references to Heritage Gateway.  To include the three publishers in every reference would make the section long and repetitive.  So the note is there to explain this.  It is a device that has been used and approved by reviewers in a number of FLs, including List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Architectural language can be tricky for the general reader, so it can be helpful to explain it briefly: see {{WP:Jargon]]. parclose screens, lierne vaulting, reredos, gorget are terms which it would be useful to briefly explain. Linking to an article is helpful, though should not be a substitute for a brief explanation. SilkTork *YES! 17:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
So how do you "explain" lierne vaulting in a word or two?  To explain many of the technical terms would be to disrupt the flow of the article. And where do you stop?  The beauty of the blue linking in WP is to give instant access to more information, should the reader want it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


### GA points
This is a clearly written article with plenty of detail and attractively presented. It is, on the whole, very useful to the general reader, and is a pleasant and informative read. There are small quibbles for the GA listings:

Build the lead a little more, per WP:Lead
Explain some technical terms, per WP:Jargon
I'm off to France for the weekend. I will be back on March 3, and will put the review on hold until then to allow the work to be done. While I am unlikely to be available to answer any queries over the weekend, please leave any messages on my talkpage and I'll deal with them when I get back. SilkTork *YES! 18:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I have thought hard about this, and I'm not happy with the way the review is going.  Alterations have been made during the review process without consultation with me.  The article had been copyedited before nomination (as can be seen from the article history), and I do not agree that further alterations to the text, other than the most minor tweaks, should be made without consultation.  But more than that, the article has been reformatted in a way that is completely unacceptable to me.  If the article were presented to me with these changes, I would not have accepted it for GA, let alone nominated it.  It is nonsense to rename a section "Location", and to move it to a position between History and Architecture.  The "location" substance amounts to one single sentence.  The rest of the section is about the present day activities of the church.  These should be at the end of the article.  So, I have reverted the article to the state after the correction I made (thanks for spotting my error).  Please now fail the article as a GAN.  I shall then be free to make another nomination, if I so please. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I did not intend to cause you offence. I will look more closely into this matter after March 3rd. SilkTork *YES! 23:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not that I am "offended", it's that I do not like to see my work mangled without discussion.  A review should be just that, a review, not a re-writing or a re-formatting.  I do not see that we shall be able to agree on a number of issues, and would rather that this review were closed, so that I can re-think the article, and maybe renominate it at some other time.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for delay. I'm now available to discuss the matter. From your comments I understand that you wish to be consulted regarding edits being made to the article by a GA reviewer. GA/FA reviewers/commentators will have varying approaches to reviewing, especially regarding small edits. Some will list even the smallest edit needed, while others will go ahead and make the edits. GA reviewers are encouraged to make improvements - see How to review an article - Point 4: "Reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to fix problems with the article under review". I tend to make minor edits and discuss other edits with those involved. I didn't think my edits were substantial enough to require discussion, and I was aware that I was going away, and simply wanted to speed matters along; clearly I was mistaken in that belief, and I apologise for any inconvenience caused. Wikipedia invites anyone to edit articles on the project - and with that invitation comes problems of inappropriate edits; though on the whole the invitation does bring in valuable contributions and contributors (such as yourself). I am fully supportive of the open invitation, though I do understand that some articles grow out of mainly one contributor, and in such circumstances there is a sense of pride in what has been achieved. It can be difficult sometimes to let others contribute, especially if one feels that one's work is not being valued or is being disturbed in some way. I don't think that is the case here. I think here it is that you disagreed with the edits I made, and your experience on Wikipedia so far had led you to an understanding that reviewers did not make edits to the article they were reviewing. I hope you are reassured that I was not only acting in good faith, but also in the true tradition of Wikipedia's ethics and the guidance of the Good Article project. I am willing to discuss the specifics of those edits with you, or simply to restore them as you feel  most appropriate. I am also able to complete the work needed to bring this to GA status in about 30 minutes or so. The article is sound, and the topic is not demanding. There is very little work to be done, and I would have completed it earlier if I had had the time. Let me know what your thoughts are. SilkTork *YES! 15:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your comment above (I was watching it, but missed it!).  I do not question your good faith, but I do not accept your edits.  Please either accept the article as it was nominated (with the error corrected), or fail it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I have asked for a second opinion on this. There is very little work needed to be done for this to be listed as a Good Article so it seems inappropriate to fail it. Perhaps somebody else taking over the review? SilkTork *YES! 18:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's fine by me.  Sorry to cause you trouble. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Who will be giving the second opinion? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The Supreme Director of Good Articles. He said he'd try to have a look over the weekend. SilkTork *YES! 19:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Context for this joke can be found on my user talk page! Geometry guy 23:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


### Comments anew
Rather than provide a second review, I'll confine this second opinion to a few comments on the apparent impasse and a few comments on the article itself, which I read before checking the edit history or review.

May I politely suggest that you guys are being too polite towards each other? :) The reviewer of a GA is just another editor: the "one reviewer decides" GA process is founded on the principle that in most cases it is enough that the nominator and reviewer agree that the article meets the GA criteria; that does not mean that either or both of them get it right every time, which is why reassessment processes are readily available to provide further input.
There is no need to be deferential to a reviewers' analysis: each suggestion or edit should be judged on its own merits. Concerns raised by a reviewer can be addressed in at least two ways: agreeing, and fixing the problem; or explaining why the concern is invalid.
"If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."  Reviewers are other editors and can make small changes which they consider improve the article. Their changes in turn can be changed. However, no one owns the text of an article, and that which "interrupts the flow" to one editor may be "useful clarification" to another. Revert individual changes if necessary, but try to build on others.
The editor and reviewer here are experienced Wikipedians whom I greatly respect. A second opinion should not be necessary: say what you think and hash it out!
Turning now to the content I have a few comments.
I found the article hard going in places, and any specific suggestions to make it easier to read should be welcomed. I'm not convinced it fails the GA criteria for this reason alone, as it is a great piece of work and is considerably clearer than some of the source material!
The move and renaming of the "Present day" section to "Location" was inappropriate. It relates, however, to a broadness concern: is this article about the church as a building, or does it also include the church as a place of worship and/or focal point of a community? There is almost no coverage of the latter aspect, especially historically. Whether this is a GA issue is a matter for discussion.
I'm not convinced that the "History" section is as reliably sourced as it can be. This is potentially a GA concern. The section is sourced almost entirely to the church's own website and does an admirable job distilling the essence from the rambling detail in the source. However the first paragraph in particular raises my "according to whom?" antennae as it asserts facts in the narrative voice of Wikipedia without in-text attribution, and sometimes with more certainty than even the source provides. For example, where the source has
No physical evidence survives, however, of any church building before about the middle of the 12th century, when we can assume the round-arched doorway which opens into the north aisle was built: it has continuous roll-mouldings uninterrupted by any capitals and no tympanum.  All the evidence suggests that at that time Astbury church was a simple rectangular building without aisles or chancel, and merely a small presbytery.
the article has
The earliest fabric in the present church, a round-arched doorway, dates from about the middle of the 12th century.
The question I would ask is: "On what reliable sources is the church history based?" At one point it states:
Below it is a plainly moulded priest’s door and further west a small trefoil-headed lowside-window (identified in the Penguin Dictionary of Architecture as “possibly intended for communication between persons St Mary’s Church, Astbury: an Attempt to Reconstruct its Building History outside the chancel and the priest within; perhaps also for the sanctus bell to be heard outside the church ... formerly, and erroneously, called a leper window”)
which suggests that the "Penguin Dictionary of Architecture" may be a source worth consulting.
If I were the reviewer, I would not pass this article until I was reassured about the sourcing of the History and convinced about the scope and coverage. Other minor details are worth a bit of to-and-fro, as such discussion may improve the article, but they do not ultimately prevent listing this nice piece of work as a GA. Geometry guy 23:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Gguy for taking so much time and trouble. I really appreciate it, especially as it does not really "mean" anything to you.  And I do like your "unofficial" title!  To business:
I do not feel that I have been "polite".  I seem to have disagreed with every comment, and this is the first time I have ever asked for a review to be ended (so creating an impasse).  Of course articles can (and should) be changed during the review process.  Minor adjustments, fine without discussion, but major changes without discussion are IMO beyond the pale.  I accept of course that the article is not owned by me or by anyone.  But when you put as much effort into an article as I have into this, edits which are less than improvements (IMO) rankle!  To the specific points:
Hard going.  I am not a professional writer and am sorry the article is "hard going" in places.  I did my (humble) best, and did get the article copyedited before referring it.  Technical stuff, like architectural description, is not the easiest material to make readable.
Reformatting and broadness.  It was the reformatting and creation of a Location section that really got to me.  I had thought hard and long about how to do this bit.  I wanted to include a sentence about the location of the church, for obvious reasons, and provide a direct link to an OS map. I decided that it fitted most neatly into a Present day section, linking in best with the current activities of the church (as a body of people).  As to the history of the community over the centuries, I was unable to find anything (if I had I would have included it).  It is in fact unusual to discover much about the history of church communities unless (as in this case) the Civil War or some other major historical event affected it.  The other situation where there is some widely recorded history is usually where there was an incumbent with extreme views (ritualism, fundamentalism, etc).  I have found no evidence of such a figure here.  And after all, GA asks for broadness rather than comprehensiveness (the latter being a criterion for FA).
Source for History.  I used the "churches own website" so extensively because of the authorship of Church History on the site.  This acknowledged to be by Andor Gomme, the "Late Emeritus Professor of Architecture and English Literature at the University of Keele".  This title sounds pretty authoritative to me, and I am not convinced that there is a more reliable source easily available.  I should have thought that this is possibly the least questionable source in the article.  I do not have the Penguin Dictionary of Architecture available, and do not think for the purpose of GA that reference to this is necessary.  And, anyway, would it be for me to question a Professor of Architecture?
As you will have gathered, I have been very disappointed by this review.  I have had three nominations for church articles previously accepted as GAs and, IMO this is the "best", especially where broadness is concerned.  So what happens next? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, an Emeritus Professor: no wonder the source is so impenetrable :) Incidentally, I found a PDF version of the document which may be easier to read.[1]. Note that the reliability of a source depends not only on the credentials of the author, but the nature of the publication/publisher. I agree with you that the author is evidently a notable subject expert: here is his obituary in the Independent on Sunday. Note, as indicated by the subtitle ("An attempt to reconstruct its building history"), that this is an informal, speculative piece: it has no cited sources, apart from passing reference to the Penguin Dictionary and Dr. Miriam Gill (an art historian).
My point above is that the article is reporting speculation as gospel truth. Fortunately, there is a simple solution: in-text attribution. It seems to me that Andor Gomme is sufficiently notable to have an article, so I've created one to find out. I suggest referring to him explicitly by name at a couple of points where the historical reconstruction is more speculative, perhaps even with some direct quotation. Then the reader can decide for themselves how reliable the history is.
By politeness, what I meant to say is that when edits rankle, express your rankled-ness, but be specific, and focus on the edit, not the editor ("Moving the Present Day section to Location is an infuriatingly bad idea because..."): one mistake does not make for a bad review, and this is a wiki, so it isn't beyond the pale to be bold.
As for what to do next, I think it is best to see what SilkTork makes of this second opinion. I have effectively ruled in your favour on the Present Day section, and you have answered my concerns about historical coverage of the community. I'm still up for some to-and-fro on the architectural history! Geometry guy 17:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you work hard!  Andor Gomme sounds an interesting guy.  And as "one of the best British architectural historians since John Ruskin" (Independent on Sunday obit), I'd take his "speculation" as being more authoritative than anything else I've found.  Anyway, during the next day or two, I'll do what you suggest and attribute the opinions to him in the article (although I do feel that this is a bit more FA than GA — having struggled with both in the past).
I guess that one person's "boldness" is a risk that anger might be evoked in the other person!  Your involvement is much appreciated. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome: discovering interesting things is its own reward. All editors are human (well, apart from the bots) and getting angry is as much a part of humanity as making mistakes. Regarding attribution and quotation, I agree with you that this is FA level stuff if the purpose is to add colour and flourish to an article; if instead the purpose is to provide accuracy, it is already a GA matter. In this case, we want the reader to know that the history is both authoritative and speculative.
I should add that obit. quote to Andor Gomme at some point, but I'm still too pleased with myself that I wrote the article in a single edit. What it is to be human! Geometry guy 19:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, 

I've expanded the lead in the way suggested.
I've tried to give brief explanations of some technical terms.  If you don't like any of these, feel free to delete them.  If you feel there should be more, please add them.
I added a bit about Gomme and his speculations; plus a Note about his academic position and the Ruskin quote. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


### Listing
Article meets GA criteria. SilkTork *YES! 23:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the location is a key piece of info that ought to come earlier in the article.  If you can't make it an own section, why not just put it at the front of History?  This would be a very normal way of writing about a building or ruin or the like.  If the village location has changed over time, then I guess you could expand the discussion into an actual section on location.
It seems like some discussion of the village size and church size and how the church served the community would be relevant.  For instance, was it just a basic parish church or some added importance?  Any relations to aspects of history other than the Roundheads (like relations of town and nobility?)TCO (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The location is given in the first sentence.  The coordinates and Grid Reference of the church are in the infobox.  The size and history of the village is not relevant IMO.  The size of the church is not available to me on the evidence available; if it becomes available, (or if you can find it), it can be added. If there were more history available on the evidence available to me, it would have been included.  I'm not sure what you mean by relations of town and nobility.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
removing page from watchlist.  No sweat, man.TCO (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to William Ball, M.A., Churchwarden & Secretary for providing information on Captain Alfred Hutton's grave and his memorial tablet, located in the chancel of the church, also for taking photos of the grave and the tablet. Later I would like to insert one sentence on Hutton in the article. Ulrich von Lichtenstein (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)