![]() | Chester Cathedral has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 3, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that when
Chester Cathedral (pictured) was restored by
Sir George Gilbert Scott in the 19th century, its exterior was almost completely recased in
Runcorn
sandstone? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Peter I. Vardy 13:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I moved this paragraph - the work of a rather opinionated editor. We need some references for this is we're going to put it back in.
-- Mcginnly | Natter 17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm also moving the organist's roll-call - WP:NOT a directory.
(Note: Names deleted because they are duplicated below - see Moved from the article. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 12:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC))
-- Mcginnly | Natter 17:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm on an ongoing programme photographing Chester cathedral - I'll post them here for selective inclusion in the article. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (legit sock of user:mcginnly)
If anyone's interested the restoration of the chapter house glass can be seen in real time here - although I've been watching it for 3 days and have yet to see any work being done - perhaps they're on holiday :-) -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that there's lots to like about this article, and the interior photos are simply great. It's obviously not a million miles away from a credible GA nomination, but if I was the reviewer I'd be critical of two things. First of all I'd say that there were too many short sentences - yes, I know what you're going to say, but bear with me. ;-) Secondly I'd say that the short sentences result in there being no real flow in some of the prose, making it read a little bit disjointedly; this, then this, then this. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've done a bit of copyediting on this article, but there are one or two places where I don't feel certain enough about what's being said to make any changes. For instance: "The organ was later re-erected in its present position at the front of the north transept. In 1910 William Hill & Son of London extensively rebuilt and revoiced it, replacing the Cavaillé-Coll reeds with new pipes of their own. The choir organ was enlarged and moved behind the choirstalls on the south side. The instrument was again overhauled by Rushworth & Dreaper of Liverpool in 1969, when a new mechanism and some new pipework made to a design drawn up by Roger Fisher was installed." Are we talking about two organs here, the organ and the choir organ, or just one?
I've got a suggestion to make as well. I found the Cathedral section a bit difficult to follow without having any idea of the layout of the cathedral. Would it be possible to include a floor plan of the cathedral? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That's excellent; many thanks. I prefer the orientation the way you have done it. I visited the cathedral this morning and have a bit more information which I will add when time allows. I was wondering about replacing the image of the choir ceiling with that of the choirstalls and misericord - these are well worth demonstrating (and to have both would be too crowded). What do you think? Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 17:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. What an excellent job you've both done on the article - no Peter I've no problem with you swapping the images, however from a photographic point of view, the choirstall photo could be improved - I'm going to return soon and take a panoramic shot of the choir and rood screen, which might be a better alternative - I have a few shots of some of the carving there also - the 'elephant' with horses legs which is mentioned in the audio guide and also the erm....I think it's called the Deans chair....I'll have to check, I think it's in the guide book. I'll upload them and make a bit of a gallery on the talk page. I made a few alterations this morning - Pevsner had his dates muddled regarding when St John's was a cathedral - His dates related to when St. John was the sole cathedral - it then became a co-cathedral, but for simplicity in our article it seems better to say St. John's was the cathedral until the dissolution. Personally I wouldn't waste your time with GA and pitch straight at FA. From a style point of view, I hope you don't mind me saying, it is a little dry with description of the building and its contents - I'll see if I can dig up some blood and guts to spice it up a bit - perhaps a new section, the cathedral in history. I seem to remember a member of Chester cathedral's clergy was involved in a very public debate and mini media storm (a media squall?) a few years ago - I think she was born with a cleft palate and she objected to the right of parents to terminate pregnancies if this malady was detected.
I think your plan is pretty good Malleus, so I'm sorry to suggest this as I know you spent quite some time on it but...... this plan confers better information regarding the various phases of the build, and the inclusion of the vaulting lines is really useful for architectural nerds such as myself. You actually picked me to the post regarding the plan - Although the plan I just linked to is actually in the public domain, my view is it needs a fairly extensive overdraw to make it sufficiently legible - colour etc. The other issue with your plan Malleus is that it might be better to exclude the text in english and just use numbers. That way we can still link the text in the image caption - but the plan can easily be trans-wiki'd to other languages. Kind regards -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok I had a bit of a delve for some blood and guts to spice the text up a bit - my thoughts are here. I think the bwpics site will prove to be a questionable reference at FAC - so we'll need to independently verify those bits. Plan on the way.......-- Joopercoopers ( talk) 14:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've come across these bits of information, but I'm not sure how best to incorporate them in the article:
More to come when I have the time... Mike Peel ( talk) 22:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This article has passed the GA noms. Further suggestions for improvements would be to add a section on the cultural significance of the church in its local community if possible. This article is otherwise well organized and well referenced and has potential to be FA-class. If you feel that this review was in error, feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Thanks. Tarret talk 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If there isn't going to be a better offering, then I suggest that that we adopt Joopercooper's suggestion (above) of deleting the text from the image and moving it to the caption. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The nave dates from the 12th to the 14th centuries, and has arcades of six bays. Richards comments that the design is "very mixed and lacks uniformity".[14]
This quotation appears to be the only description of the architecture of the nave, and, frankly, it is... well the term that one would use refers to the excrement of bovine beasts.
If this quote has been correctly made, and actually pertains to the nave, then Richard's POV (dating from the 1940s) is not worth tuppence. Anyone's eyes will tell them immediately that the design of the nave is not "very mixed", and neither does it "lack unity". It is an extremely uunified and harmonious design, this being made all the more remarkable by the fact that one side was not recommenced until more than a hundred years since work had stopped on the other side. In this case, the architects maintained the old design, a rare thing, in England!
So with all due respect, I am removing Richard's POV, and looking for one that does the building greater justice.
Amandajm ( talk) 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Many of the windows and objects state that they are "dated" 1868 (or whatever date). This form should only be used if they date is actually on the object itself. Am I to presume that where this wording is used, that this is indeed the case? Otherwise we can say "dating from" if the date is documented, but not on the object itself.
Dates on stained glass windows can be very misleading. They sometimes commemorate someone who died 20 years earlier. One wishes that they would all sign and date them properly, but they hardly ever do. It's a real hassle. Oh yes, and Pevsner... he was really bad at attributing stained glass. It's a pity, because he had a lot of credibility. A lot of his attributions have stuck, so that when you come along and say, no, that's not Clayton and Bell, that's Lavers, Barraud and Westlake, it seems like an impertinence. Amandajm ( talk) 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Next Question
About the communion plate- it is discussed under "Lady Chapel". Does this imply that it is displayed in the Lady Chapel? Or is it in the sacristy? Or what? Amandajm ( talk) 16:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for the improvements, in particular the page numbers. I thoroughly approve of the split between "Architecture" and "Fittings & Furniture" and the non-tourist approach. I agree on your comments about citing everything, but FAC assessors don't. I am going to re-borrow Richards' book and see if any answers are there - but I have a break coming up soon, so it may take time. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad you approve! Re references- there are two "fact" tags on the article on stuff that I didn't write. I've looked back to see if I accidentally lost the references along thhe way, but I don't seem to have. One is the Roman legion. The other is ...I can't remember, it might be the ID of a stained glass artist or something. It is probably Pevsner or English Heritage but I don't know. If someone knows the sources for these two facts, it would be great if they would add them. Amandajm ( talk) 12:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I found one of the missing references, but I'm not sure how to format it so it works properly. I'll leave it for someone else to fix! Amandajm ( talk) 13:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be more than enough information about St Werburgh's Abbey to justify an article of its own. Any objections to a split of this article? Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Although there's an image of the nave looking towards the choir, I thought the late 19th century image on the right, which shows more detail of the choir, might be useful. Nev1 ( talk) 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the following from the main page; it is not appropraite for a GA, being in list form rather than prose, and is uncited. It could form the basis for a separate list, if citations can be found. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 12:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
|
|
|
See also the List of Organ Scholars at Chester Cathedral.
See List of works by Leonardo da Vinci for example. Amandajm ( talk) 09:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
FAC is a bit of a nonsense these days in my opinion - our best work is simply defined in terms of how well it conforms to a formatting standard and whether or not it has a sufficiently adjective-less prose style. Nonetheless - this article is probably not far from it. If other's are interested, I'm quite happy to do some work to bring it up to the start and handle the 'pedantry process'. Anyone interested?
I think most of my images have been used in the article and whilst they're not bad, they were taken when I was new to my camera and didn't have a very wide angle lens - I feel I could probably do better these days, so when the weather starts shining, I'll pop over and get some more. As a person with an interest in architecture, I'm also thinking it would be better if the illustrations could almost catalogue the whole building.
Do do this, we are traditionally limited by the space afforded by the text, but for a while now, I've been thinking that the electronic medium might better serve architecture article than it presently does at WP. We have the facility to produce a plan which when clicked on specific areas can link to other parts of the encyclopaedia. I've used it here to jump from the map to various paragraphs in the text. I'm not proposing that in the Chester Cathedral article. But rather, the creation of a separate Images of Chester Cathedral article, which one could jump to from the map. Wouldn't it be nice to click a plan and see each stained glass window? They'd hate it at FAC, but I'd rather like to see the reaction. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 13:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Joopercoopers ( talk) 10:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know why Nuttal, Clifton Taylor and a few others link from the notes to the biblio correctly, but the rest don't seem to work? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 10:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm still working on the plan, but in the mean time here's some CC images on Flickr which might be appropriate for the gallery+. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 10:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This is approaching completion so I'm posting it here for comments before it is. Work still to do includes:
I've given it a slightly sketchy hand-drawn feel - I think a lot of images on WP look too 'harsh' - any news, view or opinions? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 01:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Amandajm ( talk) 12:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Revised plan - Got to dash, I'll note what the letters mean when I get back. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
1. West door (or west front) 2. South tower & Consistory court 3. North tower 4. Nave 5. Crossing 6. Choir 7. Lady Chapel 8. South porch 9. South ailse 10. South transept 11. South door 12. South choir ailse/St. Erasmus chapel 13. North aisle 14. North transept 15. North Choir aisle 16. St. Werburgh's Chapel 17. Vestry 18. Vestibule 19. Chapter house 20. Slype 21. Monk's Parlour with Song School above it. 22. Refectory 23. Shop 24. Undercroft 25. Abbot's Passage 26. Cloister 27. Cloister garth 28. Reception 29. Memorial garden
a. Font b. RAF Memorial chapel c. Monument to 1st Duke of Westminster d. Cheshire Regiment Memorial e. St Mary Magdalen Chapel (Children's Chapel) f. St. Oswald's Chapel g. St. George's Chapel (Cheshire Regiment) h. St. Nicholas' Chapel i. Choir Stalls j. Bishop's Throne k. High Altar l. St. Werburgh's Shrine m. East Window n. organ o. Bishop Pearson's Tomb p. Cobweb painting q. Night Stairs r. Day Stairs s. Wall Pulpit t. Lavatorium u. Norman entrance to refectory v. Carells w. Scriptorium x. Fountain and Sculpture y. Education centre z. WCs
-- Joopercoopers ( talk) 19:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
ps. I'm colour blind - will someone let me know if there's sufficient distinction between the modern and late gothic colours. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 20:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Early proof of concept for the image/plan idea here - critique required. Click on x, 4, 6, or j. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 23:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a first pass at cataloguing the glass - need to return and re-shoot with a tripod, those that need a bit more steadiness, and only got as far round (anti-clockwise) as the slype - cloisters and refectory, still to do. Rough ambulatory was West window, Nave North Aisle, west to east - South transept East, north to south - South window - South transept west, north to south - West window in choir - South choir aisle, west to east. Chapel of erasmus - North choir aisle, west to east - St. Werburgh's chapel, Lady Chapel, North Transept, Chapter House, Slype. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 01:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
-- Joopercoopers ( talk) 01:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I must say that the tracery of that south transept window is absolutely scintillating.
The collection of 19th and 20th century glass is superb. So many of the best firms are represented, including a fantastic example of Michael Connor. What a beauty! The west window is a great example of mid 20th. And the Westminster windows are excellent. Amandajm ( talk) 13:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I feel that the map and co-ords complement each other. Whereas the map is not effective when clicked on (which the co-ords are), it does give a good first impression of the location of the cathedral in the city centre and so adds to the article. Unless someone has an expert knowledge of co-ords, people are not going to look at the co-ords and first sight and think 'Wow, 53°11′31″N - that's in the centre of the city!' I feel that both the co-ords and a small map add to the article and it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia (to be bold) to exclude either. Please can there be a consensus on this before someone deletes the map purely for reasons of their own aesthetic taste? Pjposullivan ( talk) 12:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
If you are going to insist on shoving those superfluous maps in, could you please LOOK at the effect on the layout of the article and rectify the fact that the illustrations in the lead section of the body have ben pushed down, sometimes into the next section. The first rule of inserting anything large a of a visual nature into any article is to look at it and fix any problems caused. Amandajm ( talk) 00:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The Choir don't seem independently notable, but info would be worth mentioning here. Boleyn ( talk) 19:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chester Cathedral. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.crsbi.ac.uk/search/county/site/ed-ch-checa.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I was checking this as part of ongoing maintenance work on the Cheshire portal and was pleasantly surprised at how good it is; congratulations all! The images are particularly stunning, and I love the coloured plan. Did anything ever come of nominating this for a featured article? I admit I have not reread the text but the work here is obviously considerable. Pinging @ Joopercoopers and Peter I. Vardy: as the main contributors of whom I'm aware. Espresso Addict ( talk) 11:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
FYI, our one-sentence Richard Langworth (priest) article has been proposed for deletion ( WP:PROD). Right now, the article needs reliable sources to support the subject's notability.
If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the deletion notice for what to do. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 14:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Abbey of SS Peter & Paul and Abbey of SS Peter and Paul currently redirect here. (a) The article should mention that former name of the abbey on the site, if that's at all accurate. (b) Those redirects should be replaced by a dab page listing the tons of other present and former abbeys of SS Peter & Paul elsewhere in the world. People don't universally associate the name with Chester. — LlywelynII 10:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Chester Cathedral has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 3, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that when
Chester Cathedral (pictured) was restored by
Sir George Gilbert Scott in the 19th century, its exterior was almost completely recased in
Runcorn
sandstone? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Peter I. Vardy 13:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I moved this paragraph - the work of a rather opinionated editor. We need some references for this is we're going to put it back in.
-- Mcginnly | Natter 17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm also moving the organist's roll-call - WP:NOT a directory.
(Note: Names deleted because they are duplicated below - see Moved from the article. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 12:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC))
-- Mcginnly | Natter 17:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm on an ongoing programme photographing Chester cathedral - I'll post them here for selective inclusion in the article. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (legit sock of user:mcginnly)
If anyone's interested the restoration of the chapter house glass can be seen in real time here - although I've been watching it for 3 days and have yet to see any work being done - perhaps they're on holiday :-) -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that there's lots to like about this article, and the interior photos are simply great. It's obviously not a million miles away from a credible GA nomination, but if I was the reviewer I'd be critical of two things. First of all I'd say that there were too many short sentences - yes, I know what you're going to say, but bear with me. ;-) Secondly I'd say that the short sentences result in there being no real flow in some of the prose, making it read a little bit disjointedly; this, then this, then this. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've done a bit of copyediting on this article, but there are one or two places where I don't feel certain enough about what's being said to make any changes. For instance: "The organ was later re-erected in its present position at the front of the north transept. In 1910 William Hill & Son of London extensively rebuilt and revoiced it, replacing the Cavaillé-Coll reeds with new pipes of their own. The choir organ was enlarged and moved behind the choirstalls on the south side. The instrument was again overhauled by Rushworth & Dreaper of Liverpool in 1969, when a new mechanism and some new pipework made to a design drawn up by Roger Fisher was installed." Are we talking about two organs here, the organ and the choir organ, or just one?
I've got a suggestion to make as well. I found the Cathedral section a bit difficult to follow without having any idea of the layout of the cathedral. Would it be possible to include a floor plan of the cathedral? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That's excellent; many thanks. I prefer the orientation the way you have done it. I visited the cathedral this morning and have a bit more information which I will add when time allows. I was wondering about replacing the image of the choir ceiling with that of the choirstalls and misericord - these are well worth demonstrating (and to have both would be too crowded). What do you think? Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 17:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. What an excellent job you've both done on the article - no Peter I've no problem with you swapping the images, however from a photographic point of view, the choirstall photo could be improved - I'm going to return soon and take a panoramic shot of the choir and rood screen, which might be a better alternative - I have a few shots of some of the carving there also - the 'elephant' with horses legs which is mentioned in the audio guide and also the erm....I think it's called the Deans chair....I'll have to check, I think it's in the guide book. I'll upload them and make a bit of a gallery on the talk page. I made a few alterations this morning - Pevsner had his dates muddled regarding when St John's was a cathedral - His dates related to when St. John was the sole cathedral - it then became a co-cathedral, but for simplicity in our article it seems better to say St. John's was the cathedral until the dissolution. Personally I wouldn't waste your time with GA and pitch straight at FA. From a style point of view, I hope you don't mind me saying, it is a little dry with description of the building and its contents - I'll see if I can dig up some blood and guts to spice it up a bit - perhaps a new section, the cathedral in history. I seem to remember a member of Chester cathedral's clergy was involved in a very public debate and mini media storm (a media squall?) a few years ago - I think she was born with a cleft palate and she objected to the right of parents to terminate pregnancies if this malady was detected.
I think your plan is pretty good Malleus, so I'm sorry to suggest this as I know you spent quite some time on it but...... this plan confers better information regarding the various phases of the build, and the inclusion of the vaulting lines is really useful for architectural nerds such as myself. You actually picked me to the post regarding the plan - Although the plan I just linked to is actually in the public domain, my view is it needs a fairly extensive overdraw to make it sufficiently legible - colour etc. The other issue with your plan Malleus is that it might be better to exclude the text in english and just use numbers. That way we can still link the text in the image caption - but the plan can easily be trans-wiki'd to other languages. Kind regards -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok I had a bit of a delve for some blood and guts to spice the text up a bit - my thoughts are here. I think the bwpics site will prove to be a questionable reference at FAC - so we'll need to independently verify those bits. Plan on the way.......-- Joopercoopers ( talk) 14:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've come across these bits of information, but I'm not sure how best to incorporate them in the article:
More to come when I have the time... Mike Peel ( talk) 22:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This article has passed the GA noms. Further suggestions for improvements would be to add a section on the cultural significance of the church in its local community if possible. This article is otherwise well organized and well referenced and has potential to be FA-class. If you feel that this review was in error, feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Thanks. Tarret talk 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If there isn't going to be a better offering, then I suggest that that we adopt Joopercooper's suggestion (above) of deleting the text from the image and moving it to the caption. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The nave dates from the 12th to the 14th centuries, and has arcades of six bays. Richards comments that the design is "very mixed and lacks uniformity".[14]
This quotation appears to be the only description of the architecture of the nave, and, frankly, it is... well the term that one would use refers to the excrement of bovine beasts.
If this quote has been correctly made, and actually pertains to the nave, then Richard's POV (dating from the 1940s) is not worth tuppence. Anyone's eyes will tell them immediately that the design of the nave is not "very mixed", and neither does it "lack unity". It is an extremely uunified and harmonious design, this being made all the more remarkable by the fact that one side was not recommenced until more than a hundred years since work had stopped on the other side. In this case, the architects maintained the old design, a rare thing, in England!
So with all due respect, I am removing Richard's POV, and looking for one that does the building greater justice.
Amandajm ( talk) 09:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Many of the windows and objects state that they are "dated" 1868 (or whatever date). This form should only be used if they date is actually on the object itself. Am I to presume that where this wording is used, that this is indeed the case? Otherwise we can say "dating from" if the date is documented, but not on the object itself.
Dates on stained glass windows can be very misleading. They sometimes commemorate someone who died 20 years earlier. One wishes that they would all sign and date them properly, but they hardly ever do. It's a real hassle. Oh yes, and Pevsner... he was really bad at attributing stained glass. It's a pity, because he had a lot of credibility. A lot of his attributions have stuck, so that when you come along and say, no, that's not Clayton and Bell, that's Lavers, Barraud and Westlake, it seems like an impertinence. Amandajm ( talk) 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Next Question
About the communion plate- it is discussed under "Lady Chapel". Does this imply that it is displayed in the Lady Chapel? Or is it in the sacristy? Or what? Amandajm ( talk) 16:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for the improvements, in particular the page numbers. I thoroughly approve of the split between "Architecture" and "Fittings & Furniture" and the non-tourist approach. I agree on your comments about citing everything, but FAC assessors don't. I am going to re-borrow Richards' book and see if any answers are there - but I have a break coming up soon, so it may take time. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad you approve! Re references- there are two "fact" tags on the article on stuff that I didn't write. I've looked back to see if I accidentally lost the references along thhe way, but I don't seem to have. One is the Roman legion. The other is ...I can't remember, it might be the ID of a stained glass artist or something. It is probably Pevsner or English Heritage but I don't know. If someone knows the sources for these two facts, it would be great if they would add them. Amandajm ( talk) 12:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I found one of the missing references, but I'm not sure how to format it so it works properly. I'll leave it for someone else to fix! Amandajm ( talk) 13:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be more than enough information about St Werburgh's Abbey to justify an article of its own. Any objections to a split of this article? Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Although there's an image of the nave looking towards the choir, I thought the late 19th century image on the right, which shows more detail of the choir, might be useful. Nev1 ( talk) 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have moved the following from the main page; it is not appropraite for a GA, being in list form rather than prose, and is uncited. It could form the basis for a separate list, if citations can be found. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 12:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
|
|
|
See also the List of Organ Scholars at Chester Cathedral.
See List of works by Leonardo da Vinci for example. Amandajm ( talk) 09:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
FAC is a bit of a nonsense these days in my opinion - our best work is simply defined in terms of how well it conforms to a formatting standard and whether or not it has a sufficiently adjective-less prose style. Nonetheless - this article is probably not far from it. If other's are interested, I'm quite happy to do some work to bring it up to the start and handle the 'pedantry process'. Anyone interested?
I think most of my images have been used in the article and whilst they're not bad, they were taken when I was new to my camera and didn't have a very wide angle lens - I feel I could probably do better these days, so when the weather starts shining, I'll pop over and get some more. As a person with an interest in architecture, I'm also thinking it would be better if the illustrations could almost catalogue the whole building.
Do do this, we are traditionally limited by the space afforded by the text, but for a while now, I've been thinking that the electronic medium might better serve architecture article than it presently does at WP. We have the facility to produce a plan which when clicked on specific areas can link to other parts of the encyclopaedia. I've used it here to jump from the map to various paragraphs in the text. I'm not proposing that in the Chester Cathedral article. But rather, the creation of a separate Images of Chester Cathedral article, which one could jump to from the map. Wouldn't it be nice to click a plan and see each stained glass window? They'd hate it at FAC, but I'd rather like to see the reaction. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 13:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Joopercoopers ( talk) 10:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know why Nuttal, Clifton Taylor and a few others link from the notes to the biblio correctly, but the rest don't seem to work? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 10:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm still working on the plan, but in the mean time here's some CC images on Flickr which might be appropriate for the gallery+. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 10:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This is approaching completion so I'm posting it here for comments before it is. Work still to do includes:
I've given it a slightly sketchy hand-drawn feel - I think a lot of images on WP look too 'harsh' - any news, view or opinions? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 01:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Amandajm ( talk) 12:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Revised plan - Got to dash, I'll note what the letters mean when I get back. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
1. West door (or west front) 2. South tower & Consistory court 3. North tower 4. Nave 5. Crossing 6. Choir 7. Lady Chapel 8. South porch 9. South ailse 10. South transept 11. South door 12. South choir ailse/St. Erasmus chapel 13. North aisle 14. North transept 15. North Choir aisle 16. St. Werburgh's Chapel 17. Vestry 18. Vestibule 19. Chapter house 20. Slype 21. Monk's Parlour with Song School above it. 22. Refectory 23. Shop 24. Undercroft 25. Abbot's Passage 26. Cloister 27. Cloister garth 28. Reception 29. Memorial garden
a. Font b. RAF Memorial chapel c. Monument to 1st Duke of Westminster d. Cheshire Regiment Memorial e. St Mary Magdalen Chapel (Children's Chapel) f. St. Oswald's Chapel g. St. George's Chapel (Cheshire Regiment) h. St. Nicholas' Chapel i. Choir Stalls j. Bishop's Throne k. High Altar l. St. Werburgh's Shrine m. East Window n. organ o. Bishop Pearson's Tomb p. Cobweb painting q. Night Stairs r. Day Stairs s. Wall Pulpit t. Lavatorium u. Norman entrance to refectory v. Carells w. Scriptorium x. Fountain and Sculpture y. Education centre z. WCs
-- Joopercoopers ( talk) 19:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
ps. I'm colour blind - will someone let me know if there's sufficient distinction between the modern and late gothic colours. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 20:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Early proof of concept for the image/plan idea here - critique required. Click on x, 4, 6, or j. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 23:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a first pass at cataloguing the glass - need to return and re-shoot with a tripod, those that need a bit more steadiness, and only got as far round (anti-clockwise) as the slype - cloisters and refectory, still to do. Rough ambulatory was West window, Nave North Aisle, west to east - South transept East, north to south - South window - South transept west, north to south - West window in choir - South choir aisle, west to east. Chapel of erasmus - North choir aisle, west to east - St. Werburgh's chapel, Lady Chapel, North Transept, Chapter House, Slype. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 01:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
-- Joopercoopers ( talk) 01:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I must say that the tracery of that south transept window is absolutely scintillating.
The collection of 19th and 20th century glass is superb. So many of the best firms are represented, including a fantastic example of Michael Connor. What a beauty! The west window is a great example of mid 20th. And the Westminster windows are excellent. Amandajm ( talk) 13:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I feel that the map and co-ords complement each other. Whereas the map is not effective when clicked on (which the co-ords are), it does give a good first impression of the location of the cathedral in the city centre and so adds to the article. Unless someone has an expert knowledge of co-ords, people are not going to look at the co-ords and first sight and think 'Wow, 53°11′31″N - that's in the centre of the city!' I feel that both the co-ords and a small map add to the article and it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia (to be bold) to exclude either. Please can there be a consensus on this before someone deletes the map purely for reasons of their own aesthetic taste? Pjposullivan ( talk) 12:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
If you are going to insist on shoving those superfluous maps in, could you please LOOK at the effect on the layout of the article and rectify the fact that the illustrations in the lead section of the body have ben pushed down, sometimes into the next section. The first rule of inserting anything large a of a visual nature into any article is to look at it and fix any problems caused. Amandajm ( talk) 00:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The Choir don't seem independently notable, but info would be worth mentioning here. Boleyn ( talk) 19:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chester Cathedral. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.crsbi.ac.uk/search/county/site/ed-ch-checa.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I was checking this as part of ongoing maintenance work on the Cheshire portal and was pleasantly surprised at how good it is; congratulations all! The images are particularly stunning, and I love the coloured plan. Did anything ever come of nominating this for a featured article? I admit I have not reread the text but the work here is obviously considerable. Pinging @ Joopercoopers and Peter I. Vardy: as the main contributors of whom I'm aware. Espresso Addict ( talk) 11:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
FYI, our one-sentence Richard Langworth (priest) article has been proposed for deletion ( WP:PROD). Right now, the article needs reliable sources to support the subject's notability.
If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the deletion notice for what to do. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 14:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Abbey of SS Peter & Paul and Abbey of SS Peter and Paul currently redirect here. (a) The article should mention that former name of the abbey on the site, if that's at all accurate. (b) Those redirects should be replaced by a dab page listing the tons of other present and former abbeys of SS Peter & Paul elsewhere in the world. People don't universally associate the name with Chester. — LlywelynII 10:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)