Talk:St Botolph's Church, Boston

message: Looks a good article, so graded as a C as lacks inline refs which would make it a B candidate. Good work every one BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: The article implicitly, but correctly, contradicts itself. The Stump is the name of the tower of St Botolph's Church, Boston, not the church itself, although common usage refers to the Church by the name of its tower, in a similar way to that in which "Big Ben" correctly refers to a bell, but is used to refer to the tower in which it is hung ("The tower of the great clock of Westminster" or something like that). I am not sure how best to edit the article to reflect this, if at all.
:I've amended it but the amendment might be made a little more concise if you can see a way of compressing it. (RJP 10:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks fine. --SMeeds 10:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah 2A0E:1D47:CA03:1E00:D90F:3EAF:CCDF:7999 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strictly Incorrect 

message: I almost didn't recognise it compared to earlier versions. Good job! --JanesDaddy 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Props to [[User:Gothicform|Gothicform]] for nice job on [[The Stump]]

message: It would be helpful to see a measurement in the claim (under Dimensions and Statistics) that the church is the "tallest to roof" of any parish church in England.
The article on St. Bartholomew's in Brighton is a good example of how such a claim can be presented, while preserving NPOV.  That church, which has no tower, claims the tallest nave of any English parish church at 135 feet plus another 9 feet for the cross. 
Such superlatives are worth noting in an article, but do not seem encyclopedic without stating a measurement.
Monomoit (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Much confused by tallest to roof which smacks of special pleading. Tallest_church_tower says tallest parish church tower (as opposed to spire) in England but lacks cite. --Alastair Rae (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  … and Salisbury Cathedral, of course, and Freiburg Minster, and St. Peter's of Rome … 83.248.231.252 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of Superlative 

message: The article states: "For approximately the next 20 years, theological determination was disputed between the crown, nobility and clergy in England. Political turmoil from these events led to the Hundred Years War and the eventual formation of the Church of England as we understand it today."
The first question, is "20 years" from when, to when? Second, it is inaccurate to say that the Hundred Years War resulted in the formation of the Church of England. There are far more direct precursors, including Luther and Henry VIII's dispute with Rome over the annulment of his marriage to Cathrine of Arragon. The fact remains that unlike the rest of Europe that turned Protestant during the 16th Century, England's foray into Protestantism was both hesitant and the result not so much of popular protest and conversion from below, but rigorously enforced policy from above. The North in particular reacted strongly against these policies, resulting in the Pilgrimage of Grace. While it's impossible to say, therefore, that the Hundred Years War played no role in the formation of the Anglican Church (after all, most everything is connected on some level), its contribution was at most indirect and subtle, and more properly suited for a scholarly article than encyclopedic entry.
My recommendation is to remove the quoted text, which is not a good fit for the section in any case.Mikhelos (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: History Inaccurate

message: This is a very good article, and I would like to grade it B and nominate for GA.  But it still needs more in-line refs for that, Most sections are entirely unreferenced.  I don't think it is unfactual, just not :Wikipedia:Verifiability compliant.  :Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and When and why to create sources are jolly helpful too.
I enjoyed reading this article.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: The statement that the library contains "a 1585 Baskerville Bible with its revolutionary type-face" is an impossibility. If it is a 1585 Bible it is probably an edition of the Bishops' Bible (or perhaps a Geneva Bible); if it is a Bible printed by John Baskerville it dates from 1763. Being unable to determine whether either or both are correct in the case of Boston, I have deleted the statement entirely; perhaps someone with local knowledge can provide a correct version.
Camboxer (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library 

message: Didn't understand: "The walls of the tower are 40 feet (12.2 m) 40 feet (12.1 m)". It can't be thickness, so guessing "40 feet square" is probably what is meant. Please can someone who knows correct it :-) Taliska (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensions section