Talk:Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England

message: Observing that this article has been graded "low" as an Anglican project, I just checked out the rating scale, to see what qualified as a "low priority article" . What it said was:-
:While still notable, these are highly-specialised or even obscure, not essential for understanding the wider picture ("nice to have" articles) eg: Parish of the Falkland Islands. 
My comment is as follows:-
No, the architecture of the great medieval cathedrals of England is not an "obscure" subject. And it isn't "highly specialised" either. This is an article about the major works of art produced by the Church in England (as against the Church of England) over a period of about 500 years. They are still serving their purpose. They are the most highly visible evidence of the presence of the church in England. They are loved, visited, studied. Thousands of British school children are taken to them, thousands of French school children traipse through Canterbury Cathedral alone every year because it is accessible from the Channel tunnel. That is the indication of the significance of these buildings.
The article has the same degree of importance as an article describing St Peter's Basilica, Rome would have. (I haven't checked it but it's probably rated high on the Architecture scale and also high on the religion scale).
Amandajm (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no point in worrying about these gradings, which nobody takes any notice of & are always wildly erratic, although the Anglicanism project does seem to take this to exteremes. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh I see that is now graded HIGH importance!  Amanda, next time you fancy ruffling some feathers you might take a look at the architectural content of that one!  Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning grading

message: This is my first GA review and so I have had no such experience reviewing articles, but this is an outstanding reference to the medieval cathedrals in England, and I'm sure any GA reviewer would agree with me that this is a very good article, especially considering it's age. I am truly astounded by the hard work and effort put into this article, and I especially consider giving a good pat on the back to Amandajm. Well done. Rudget.talk 17:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Comments

message: At the risk of seeming argumentative and ungrateful, I am responding to the comments of Rudget! Firstly, I am truly delighted! Secondly, to look at some of the comments:
*There is a reliance on sources 1,2,3 (for example Source 2 is used 60 times.) 
:::*Four main references are used- 1,2,3 and 8. There are 143 references, with a reliance of four books of which three are most specific to the article, a few others, both specific and general and some monographs.
:::*No 3. Banister Fletcher, is the Bible of architectural history, and is a standard text on English Gothic in particular. 
:::*The other three of these books contain orderly reviews of all the cathedrals, and were thus the ideal sources for the topic. John Harvey provides all the dates and measurements. AC-T contains "quotable quotes" because he writes in a poetic style. If one cannot say that the facade of Peterborough is a "supreme masterpiece" of Gothic architecture, one must quote Clifton-Taylor, in order to be able to give any sort of verbal "picture" or scale of architectural significance. Tatton-Brown and Crook is a 2002 book with lots of good info.
:::*What I could do is simply cut a lot of the references to CC-T, because he and JH both move through the buildings in a similar direction, so to speak. But in many paragraphs, I have combined info from both, or have used CC-T to support JH or BF. In other words, one could write in many cases JH says this and so does CC-T. If I simply remove 20 references to AC-T, there will still be 123 references but it will simply look more balanced.
*One case of weasel words  (eg. Despite this, it is one of the supreme masterpieces of Gothic, revealing the enormous diversity and imagination of English medieval architects.) 
:: This problem again! In describing these, or any buildings, it is not enough to use a word like "famous" or "renowned" which both seem to be acceptable on wiki. The architectural writer seeks a) to describe the character and impression of the building, which is a different thing from saying that it is in the Early English style, and has three tall arches across a facade of 153 feet. This information may be true but tells the reader next to nothing. b) to create a scale of significance for the buildings eg: 
::*Ripon Cathedral has a nice, tidy, well-balanced, harmonious facade.*** 
::*Wells, of the same period, has a magnicent, expansive, rich and highly three-dimensional facade.**** 
::*But the facade of Peterbough is the "supreme masterpiece".***** It is not only unique, it is very, very different from anything else on the planet, and "overpowering" in the effect it creates when you walk through the gatehouse from the street and are confronted by it. If I say that Michelangelo's ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is a "supreme masterpiece", no-one (no-one sensible) questions it. Well, this facade might not be as well known, but it is right up there with "the Creation of Adam", the Taj Mahal and the "Jupiter" Concerto! The reason why it isn't known to the general public is that: 
::::a) it never was the tallest. 
::::b) Michelangelo didn't do it.  
::::c) it has nothing to do with President Lincoln.  
::::d) Harry Potter hasn't been filmed there. 
::::e) It hasn't been the backdrop to Live Aid. 
::::f) Dan Brown hasn't written about it yet. 
::One of the problems here is that if I was writing about Heavy Metal music, for example, I would find that the styles, and people's preferences for them were defined down to the enth degree and I could describe the style of a band with a precision that almost defies logic. And these definitions would be of extraordinary significance to those who shop on Itunes. 
::But no such divisions are available when it comes to the facades of Ripon, Wells and Peterborough Cathedral. These three buildings of enormously different character are simply lumped together as "Early English Gothic". And I, as a writer, have no way to bring them to the wiki public, except by the use of so-called "weasel words". 
*Remove the section "architectural styles" (It's not needed, it's already wikilinked extensively in the article) 
:::This section is not intended to simply describe the styles. The important thing that it does is show how a particular style is applied to and can be seen at a range of different buildings. Canterbury, for example, has Norman architecture, but you would have to search to find it. If you want to see a Norman cathedral then you go to: Durham, Peterbough, Norwich.
Amandajm (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these are just thing to think about as we move it to FA.  It is a good article. -- SECisek (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on the comments

message: The offical websites should be moved there. -- SECisek (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rudget.talk 17:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: *Grammar:  It was bombed during World War II, leaving intact only its spire, regarded as one of the finest in England. 
This was changed to "...leaving only it's spire intact, regarded as one of the finest in England." Definitely No. The first form is correct, the second form is wrong. 
# The possessive case of "it" doesn't take an apostrophe. It is like "his, hers, yours" etc The rule is clear with "his" but not so obvious with the other and people sometimes get "her's" and "your's" wrong. If you write "it's" you mean "it is".
# The subject of the final phrase is "the spire". This is not "intact, which is regarded as... finest in England". It is    "the spire, which is regarded as... finest in England." 
# Forms like "leaving intact" are not particularly common in spoken English but are correct. The two words together constitute a single idea. It would be possible to say "leaving only the spire". But this is not the case. The walls of the building remain, "only the spire" was "left intact". "Sparing" means something similar to "leaving intact". 
*About the facade of Peterborough again, I reverted the changes, because they meant something entirely different to the statement as written. 
:Saying that the facade is good "despite the changes" is not the same as saying that it is good "taken as a whole". 
:In the case of the facade of Lincoln, one has a mish-mash of styles and periods, with no architectural unity whatsoever, but "taken as a whole" it is majestic. 
:In the case of Peterborough, there is a stupendous and totally unified design, marred by two features- that the towers were not both levelled or both raised to the same height, and that a large porch (a nice thing in itself) was jammed into the main arch, therefore completely distracting from the original and brilliant concept. The facade of Peterborough remains majestic "despite" these intrusions. 
Amandajm (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re reversions of changes

message: I think it is appropriate to have it in the more prominent position ie. near the intro. 
Amandajm (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglicanism portal

message: For a new article and DYK entry, this is astounding. Well written on a fascinating subject, with a large amount of detail and lots of excellent and relevant pictures. Take this to Featured Articles immediately! Modest Genius talk 12:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: *I am so glad that someone picked up on the fact that Rochester had taken a trip to the west, that York Minster had changed its title and that Norwich was still obstinately offline and the other little things that needed doing. 
*Opinion needed: I have heard both Southwell and Lincoln referred to as "Minster". What are the local preferences? 
*As for putting it up as a Featured Article candidate....I don't know that I have the energy that it takes, just at the moment! The whole business can be a ghastly process! Amandajm (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would expect to see Southwell Minster & Lincoln Cathedral - as per the titles of our articles. Southwell has only been a cathedral since 1884 (previously in diocese of York), whereas Lincoln has been one since 1072, which no doubt accounts for the difference. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you everybody who has contributed!

message: Cathedral Architecture - Development and diversity of towers in Western Europe this is linked as the main article for the Towers section of this one - was it renamed or deleted? Lethesl 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted, I think! Amandajm (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Red link

message: I have added a section listing known architects - mainly those for whom I could find a wikipedia article.  But it would be much better if editors could add more as they are aware of them. TomHennell (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nice section. I don't suppose you have a reference for the first paragraph do you? Bob talk 15:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do, and it is will be the same for most of the edits I shall be making to this article. Though I don't have the book to had just at the moment. TomHennell (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  arcihtects 

message: This article is about the great medieval cathedrals of England as they stand today. I am never happy about removing someones hard work, but after a year, I have come back to this and realised that a great wad of the edits are off course. This article, in its first and in some subsequent sections makes it fairly clear that it is an article about the cathedrals as they stand.  
The history is relevant to understanding the present forms, but the rephrasing and writing of many passages back into the medieval period isn't appropriate. The info on the history of the church an the organisation of the medieval church belong somewhere else. This took up about a third of the article. There was far too much on the saxon era, given that the it is only scantly represented in the present cathedrals. 
Moreover, none of these additions to the text were referenced. I have restored much of it to the stage it was at when it was rated GA. Amandajm (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed data

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117060603/http://www.exeter-cathedral.org.uk/Welcome.html to http://www.exeter-cathedral.org.uk/Welcome.html/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119212222/http://www.lincolncathedral.com:80/xhtml/ to http://www.lincolncathedral.com/xhtml/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121230529/http://www.southwellminster.co.uk:80/ to http://www.southwellminster.co.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090402112806/http://www.cathedral.ely.anglican.org/ to http://www.cathedral.ely.anglican.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014222206/http://cofe-worcester.org.uk/cathedral/ to http://www.cofe-worcester.org.uk/cathedral/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified