# Talk:St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford

This is a fine article; the only qualm I have is that I'd like to see it a bit better supported by sources. Statements that I think need support are:

"In the 1180s, the site was granted to the canons of the nearby Osney Abbey, and a chapel was erected on the site around 1190."
"In 1802 only ten communicants are recorded, and in 1814 some 90% of the parish was thought to be non-churchgoing."
"The nave was rebuilt in the late 15th or early 16th century to meet a tower of approximately the same age; it is often dated to 1521, but appears to be built on older foundations."
Chubbles 16:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The first is from the VCH, the source listed at the end of that paragraph:
Its site was not given to the abbey until between 1182 and 1189, and the grant made no mention of a chapel.
The second is again the VCH:
The number of communicants fell to fewer than 10 by 1802 ... In 1814 nine-tenths of the population were said to be non church-goers from ignorance and vice.
The third is again from the VCH, which is the source listed at the end of that paragraph:
In the late 15th or early 16th century the nave was almost completely rebuilt and extended westwards, perhaps to meet a freestanding tower: the west tower is said to have been completed c. 1521, but its lower stages are earlier
I've added a footnote for the second and left the others as is. Shimgray | talk | 07:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I wish there were an easier way to subsume several paragraphs under a single footnote... Chubbles 07:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The footnoting is pretty messy, but as it stands basically all material can be sourced to the trailing cite. What I'm tempted to do is remove the footnoting entirely for VCH and the Encyclopedia of Oxford, give them as general references, and just footnote the two details taken from the website... it's probably just as useful to the reader, since the two sources were used in parallel and contain much the same material. Shimgray | talk | 07:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the article was only given GA status a few months ago, the article seems to me to be particularly weak in a number of ways, so I've nominated this article for Good Article review.  Contributors and reviewers alike are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer3000 07:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll make any changes needed to keep this GA.  Start the suggestions. -- SECisek 09:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added a couple of mroe suggestions today.--Peter cohen 13:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Discussion is linked in the article history. Geometry guy 20:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yyyyyeaaa, seeing as how the review wasn't over even after more than a month, i've restarted it, so that comments will more accuratly reflect the current state of the article. Homestarmy 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the Ebbsfleet site, the church still seems connected to that see, even without being a parish of its own. Is that correct? Even if not, I think the information about the Ebbsfleet past should remain in the article (with adjusted tenses) as an important aspect of St. Thomas' history; this change seems too much of a good thing in any case.--Oudeístalk  13:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)