Jump to content

Talk:St Nicholas, Blakeney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSt Nicholas, Blakeney is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 21, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2011Good article nomineeListed
November 6, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Gratuitous on-the-way-to-GA/FA-feedback

[edit]
  • I think I'd rejig the opening few sentences to:

" St Nicholas is the Anglican parish church of Blakeney, Norfolk in the deanery of Holt and the Diocese of Norwich. It stands just inland and about 30 m (100 ft) above the small port. Of the original 13th Century building, only the chancel remains, the rest of the church having been rebuilt in the prosperous 15th century. The chancel may have survived due to its link to the nearby friary. Unusual features include a second tower, used as a beacon, at its east end, a stepped seven-light window in the chancel, and a hammerbeam roof in the nave. Much of the original furniture was lost in the Reformation, but a late-Victorian restoration recreated something of the original appearance, as well as repairing and refacing the building itself."

as the second segment of the very first sentence sounds a bit funny where it is to my ears (or is it eyes....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • roughly contemporary with the friary - why not "at around the same time as the friary"?
  • "the church porche defiled with cattel" - looks odd unitalicised when next segment is.

Otherwise looks ok - can't think of anything omitted, and no clangers in the prose. I'll take another look later. Nominating for GA will get another set of eyes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas, I've adopted all your suggestions. I'll go through with a fine-tooth comb before GAN. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:St Nicholas, Blakeney/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) 14:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The town
  • I'm a bit puzzled by this section. What is its relevance to the church?
  • Thanks for reviewing. It's just a short section to put some context to the location of the church, the seafaring tradition, and the success of the port which made the rebuilding in the 15th century possible. Should I call it "location" and/or amalgamate the relevant bits elsewhere? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference would be to amalgamate whatever is relevant into one or more of the current sections. But I think that renaming it to Location would be sufficient for GA, although I'm not so sure about FA. Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furnishings and Fittings
  • I think it definitely needs to be done before tackling FA, but the article clearly meets the GA criteria as it stands, as witnessed by the paucity of my comments here. It's certainly among the best church articles I've seen and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most East Anglian churches lost their mediaeval furnishings". Elsewhere the spelling "medieval" has been used.
People
  • "Several stones bear the surname 'Long', a name carried by five of the crew of the Caroline on its epic rescue." Which was its epic rescue, the one on 7 January 1918 or the one the following day? Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments re FAC

[edit]
  • The missing word re the ships is "votive" - see votive offering or Ex-voto - it's no use vaguely calling them "devotional" with a link to worship. If indeed not just idle drawings they probably represented either a wish for protection of a new or newly-owned ship, or on a voyage, or thanks for surviving a particular difficult moment at sea. Nautical votives remained very common in Catholic countries, see this lot in Marseilles. If your sources don't have a reference, there's one votive&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1600&bih=707&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=sw#q=Blakeney+votive+ship&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=imvns&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_p here.
  • The Norfolk churches website of Simon Knott has rightly been recognised as an RS & has a good account. He and John Julius Norwich, The Architecture of Southern England, Macmillan, London, 1985, ISBN 03333220374 and Jenkins, Simon, England's Thousand Best Churches, 1999, Allen Lane, ISBN 0-7139-9281-6 have more lively and evocative quotes, which the article could do with.
  • Knott points out that one of the 6 angels is actually a female saint, & there would have been 9 (for the orders) originally.
  • The angels wear fine examples of what art historians call "feather tights", which should be mentioned if you have a ref. It's pity there are no photos, which should be added to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Angels_with_feather_tights if anyone comes up with any.
  • In general the article is not very good at highlighting what makes the church distinctive & distinguished (the second tower, ship drawings, early glass, chancel) as opposed to what could be said of thousands of other medieval churches.

Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

measurements

[edit]

Just a minor point, but as a British subject, should the measurements be given in imperial and converted to metric? Mjroots (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just filled my car with several litres of diesel, bought a litre of paint and a 75 cl bottle of wine. I've no intention of giving preference to what, these days, are primarily US units. Although metrication has stalled, the UK is not an imperial units only country Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bells

[edit]

Could someone add details (number, hanging method, tenor weight) of the bells, please? The relevant parameters have just been added to {{Infobox church}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What bells? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Direction?

[edit]

The caption of the lead photo states that it is the view from the northeast. If that's so, the sun appears (from the way the shadows are falling) to be in the north. Last I checked, the sun rarely appeared in the north in Norfolk. Is the caption or the photo wrong? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly right. The caption is wrong in describing this as a view from the North east. The Chancel, like almost all chancels in England, points east, with its eastern windows towards the rising sun. The view is plainly from the south-east. The orientation of the church is slightly north of east, not due east. The photo was apparently taken on a summer morning.
Amandajm (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor description

[edit]

Even though the salient facts are here, this is a very poor and badly-organised way to write an architectural description!

The west tower of this large, lead-roofed church is supported by stepped buttresses at each corner. The buttresses are constructed from flint and stone, and have arched insets on the faces.[32] They rest on stone plinths, each bearing carved shields.[18] That on the north buttress has an inaccurate rendition of the arms of the see,[2] the other has a design featuring a cross and a dolphin,[9] The tower is surmounted with crenellations and pinnacles, and has three Perpendicular lights in the belfry and a large four-light west window in the same style.[2]

  1. "The western tower....has....." While the western tower is generally the most visible and first approached part of the church, the reader needs to be told a) that the church has a tower, and b) that it is a western tower, rather than a central tower.
  2. The west tower of this large, lead-roofed church. Lead-roofed has nothing whatsoever to do with tower. When you progress to describing the tower, don't throw in details that have nothing to do with it.
  3. Buttresses. We go on to a lengthy description of the buttresses. Not in the first paragraph of the description.
  4. Start this section on architecture with a basic description of the building, e.g. "St Nicholas is an aisled parish church with a tower at each end and a total length of about ?150 feet?."
  5. Describe the exterior, then the interior, if possible. This is not always the best way to do it.

Amandajm (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, first shot at an FA for anything other than birds, precious little in the way of other church FAs to model on, none of the above raised at FAC. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, most of the people who do FAC stuff know little about art or architecture. Drop me a message next time you do a church, and I'll take a look before it goes up for FAC. It can be a nasty process, particularly if the article is a major one. Well done on making the front page!
Amandajm (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

I would scrap the map. Clicking on the co-ordinates takes you straight to a map page, where you can view it in any size or form you want. The map lengthens the blinking box, which takes up space for much more meaningful info. Amandajm (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I get the impression that maps are expected for anything that's in a place Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on St Nicholas, Blakeney. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on St Nicholas, Blakeney. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St Nicholas, Blakeney. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St Nicholas, Blakeney. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Nicholas,_Blakeney&oldid=1195749854"