Talk:St Buryan

message: I've recently moved a lot of material about the Church to the spin off article The Church of St. Buryan as i felt it was Starting to take over this  page (there is more than enough info for its own page plus I still have more to put in!).  I've tried to summarise the main church article here by condensing what I've moved to just key points.  Anyway, in answer to your question I think that they were rung again properly in 1994, but I thought that would be better put in the main article rather than the summary. What do you think about a push for feature quality (obviously needs a lot of work, but i think it could be done?)Mammal4 20:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ringing of the bells

message: From the etymology section: http://stburyan.com/wordpress/2004/10/02/on-the-name-of-our-village-st-buryan/
Joe D (t) 13:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is only temporarily dead  - I think the webmaster is upgrading the site so it's out of action for a while. I'll put it back when I know that it is workng again (or find another one) Mammal4 13:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.
*References should state the author, publisher, publishing date and access date, if known.
*Please provide citations for these statements:
**"His advice controversially led to the imposition of ship money which is thought by many to have helped trigger the English Civil War. Noy suffered from stones, and died in great pain before being buried at the church in New Brentford in 1634." refs added 120108 Mammal4 (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As no improvements have been made in the past three weeks, I'm afraid I've had to delist the article. It shouldn't take too much work to get it back to GA standard, though. Epbr123 12:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: I've replaced the original infobox as the new one does not distinguish between St Buryan the parish and St Buryan the village, and also removes information from the article, including the village population as opposed to the parish population, as well as a map of the position of the parish within the district.  I have had this discussion before during the drawn out process of making the UK place infobox that it was not suitable for every geography article and a satisfactory compromise could not be reached, so it was decided to let it be.  I am happy to talk about a compromise solution that would see the 'missing' information maybe included elsewhere in the article, or perhaps (as I originally suggested) extra optional fields being added to the infobox that could be used on this page, but left blank on others where the information is maybe not known.  Mammal4 (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really mind which is used, it was just a sort of a pre-emptive edit as it'll no doubt get changed to the standard template by the Consistency Nazis as soon as it gets GA/FA nominated --Joowwww (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Wouldn't the post town be PENZANCE or somewhere like that instead of TRURO?  (I didn't like to edit it as I'm not that familiar with 'down west'!) Cornishman5040 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Town 

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 4, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: On the whole the prose is good, but lots of grammatical redundancy and some "innocent" weasel words. Some issues with capitalisation too. Examples:
*"famous grade I listed Church" - should read "famous Grade I listed church". 
*There are too many instances of grammatical redundancy, such as "there are several", "The village was also previously served". Words like "also", "many", "several", "has" are words that can usually be trimmed or omitted without incurring any damage to the meaning of the sentence. This page has some useful advice on the issue. 
*"St Levan (with which it has close ties)" - is unsourced and a little ambiguous.
*"Named after the Irish Saint Buriana" - according to the article on Saint Buriana he was Cornish.
*"The parish also has a strong cultural heritage." - according to whom? Ought this be a "rich cultural heritage"?
*"Today St Buryan is a prominent local centre housing many important amenities" - what is meant by "prominent local centre"? How important are these amenities? There doesn't seem to be any amenity of special remark for a parish of this size.
*"The area surrounding St Buryan was in use by humans in Neolithic times, as is evident from the their surviving monuments." - this needs a rephrase as it's not entirely clear what is meant.
*Per WP:MOSHEAD, the word "The" should not be used for section headers. Simillarly, "Industrial revolution" should be capitalised to "Industrial Revolution".
:2. Factually accurate?: Possibly the weakest part of the article I'm afraid. My concerns here are section-wide rather than statement-wide which is problematic for any article wanting to achieve GA status. There are too many individual statements to list effectively here. Some broader challenges include:
*Several paragraphs, even sections have only a single source attributed to them. Some sections, such as 20th century and Amenities have none.
*Citations in the latter sections of the article are missing information. I'd recommend using one of the Wikipedia:Citation templates to better organise and display references.
*IMDB is an open-source website and thus not a reliable source.
*The first paragraph under Education is unsourced.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Somewhat. Some very comprehensive parts, but lacking in some key areas. Sections on Economy and Demography come to mind, but there are other recommendations at WP:UKCITIES to achieve total thoroughness.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Borderline. There are no instances of soapboxing, but without reliable source material, it's hard to verify a substantial amount of the article.
:5. Article stability? Pass.
:6. Images?: Pass. Very good images, though something for the lead (like a village-scape) in the infobox would be great (as seen at Wormshill or Runcorn or Barnsley etc). That's not an issue for failing the article, just something that could be considered.
I would recommend bringing this article more inline with the WP:UKTOWNS standard, and then take it through the formal WP:PR process to maximise the article's potential.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed.  Thank you for your work so far.</div> If you want clarification on any of these, or think I've been unfair please feel free to contact me and I'll do my best to respond here. Best of luck with the article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: I do have a number of issues concerning your edits and appraisal of this article though, which I hope can be worked out sensibly and peacefully: 
*In replacing United Kingdom with England you have breached the consensus on naming of UK place names in which I and many other geography editors participated, as replacing one set of perfectly Ok terminology for another has been deemed POV see here and here. I am happy to have both England and UK, but not just England.
*By removing the infobox you have removed content from the article in the name of consistency.  St Buryan is not a town, but a parish containing a village of the same name.  The infobox you've inserted has no place for the parish map or village population statistics.  This issue has been brought up previously on the St Buryan discussion page (if you'd looked before changing the article) and also on the discussion pages of the infobox itself here.  This issue still hasn't really been adequately sorted out in my opinion as a one size fits all box can cause problems.  I'm happy to switch to the other infobox, but you shouldn't just chop info from the article, rather include the removed info it in the text instead maybe. 
*Some minor points from your assessment
** "famous grade I listed Church" is not weasel wording - the church has the heaviest peal of 6 bells in the world, and has had prominent appearances on tv and national press - this makes it famous, though I'd agree with your assessment if it were any other church in the area. 
**St Levan (with which it has close ties) - is unsourced and a little ambiguous.  - St Levan used to be part of the parish of St Buryan, and this is mentioned in the article, although also here .  I think this constitutes close ties
**"Named after the Irish Saint Buriana" - according to the article on Saint Buriana he was Cornish.- No - the article on St Buriana (which I stubbed in the first place from my first mention in the St Buryan article) states that she was a Cornish saint (ie thought of as a Saint in Cornwall, but was the daughter of an Irish king (ie. born and raised in Ireland) so depending on how you look at it she is both a Cornish saint (a saint of Cornwall) and an Irish saint (a saint whose nationality was Irish)
**"Today St Buryan is a prominent local centre housing many important amenities" - what is meant by "prominent local centre"? How important are these amenities? There doesn't seem to be any amenity of special remark for a parish of this size. This seems a bit harsh to be honest - my rereading of the text is that it is a prominent centre locally, i.e. this is where there are a substantial concentration of council amenities locally (doctors surgery, school, recycling points) from which people in the surrounding area would travel.  It doesn't claim to be any more special than similarly sized parishes elsewhere or on any sort of national scale
**"The area surrounding St Buryan was in use by humans in Neolithic times, as is evident from the their surviving monuments." - this needs a rephrase as it's not entirely clear what is meant.  Again, I think the text is quite clear - there is a whole section on the surrounding neolithic monuments further down, I don't think this needs further explanation
**Factually accurate?: Possibly the weakest part of the article I'm afraid. My concerns here are section-wide rather than statement-wide which is problematic for any article wanting to achieve GA status. There are too many individual statements to list effectively here. Not quite sure what you're expecting here - this is a detailed article about a small village in Cornwall, it isn't going to have reams of referencable material available online or even in local libraries.  By necessity it contains a great deal of local knowledge, which is what I thought wikipedia was supposed to encourage.  Maybe if you could point out some specific points that are troubling you we could work to address them rather than just saying it is broadly inaccurate, as this is not really helpful
**  In general although I appreciate that Wikipedia has high and rising standards, I think this article assessment was a little harsh, especially considering that it was a good article previously, and that after it was delisted I addressed all of the points raised.
Take care Mammal4 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on St Buryan. 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/20090327092003/http://www.penwith.gov.uk/media/adobe/m/c/CONSERVATION_AREA_LIST.pdf to http://www.penwith.gov.uk/media/adobe/m/c/CONSERVATION_AREA_LIST.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090313090941/http://www.krowskernewek.com/celtic-cross-history.htm to http://www.krowskernewek.com/celtic-cross-history.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619090607/http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5749 to http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5749
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109124111/http://www.penwith.gov.uk/media/adobe/9/s/parish%20population.PDF to http://www.penwith.gov.uk/media/adobe/9/s/parish%20population.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060503210625/http://homepages.tesco.net/~k.wasley/buryan.htm to http://homepages.tesco.net/~k.wasley/buryan.htm
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) 00:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified