The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:39, 24 October 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a companion list to List of new churches by John Douglas, a FL. Its format is precisely similar, and much of the text is common to both lists. It completes the ecclesiastical works of John Douglas. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 11:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
resolved issues from Bencherlite |
---|
;Comments from Bencherlite
Good work. A few small thoughts before I support:
|
Strong support – a well-researched and excellently-presented list, that is clearly the result of a lot of hard work, not just in writing the list, but in writing the supporting articles. This is the type of list and the sort of long-term effort that those people who complain about the unfairness of a minimal redlink criteria in WP:FL? would be well-advised to look at. This list would not be as worthwhile without links to articles about the churches.
In addition, you have clearly visited some of the churches on the list to take photographs, and spent time looking for free-use images elsewhere to upload to Commons. A particularly strong pat on the back for the alt-text (can't have been easy thinking of variations on the phrase "it's a church"). No dablink problems, external links fine, sources all look to be reliable print / web, images are all free-use at Commons. Bencherlite Talk 10:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Response. Thanks for the helpful comments. I have tried to answer all the points. I agree with your comments about the quality of Featured Lists; IMO they should be more than "good" lists and should also contain material of "added" value above what would be expected in a "good" list. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 13:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from
Hassocks5489
| |
---|---|
Comments from Hassocks5489 I ran through this in some depth a few days ago, before Bencherlite's comments. Most of the points I would have raised have been resolved: here are a few minor stylistic observations... The table itself
|
A
Table notes
Alt text
Refs
Other bits
|
Response. Thanks for the detailed review and the supportive comments. I have dealt with the points raised. To get John Douglas to FT will require much work on the two remaining lists; they are on structures more varied than churches, and supporting articles will not always be easy to write for every object. But thanks for the encouragement. Peter I. Vardy ( talk)
Comment - Why are there several dates in some churches? I just skimmed through the list, so I may have missed the explaination.— Chris! c/ t 00:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Response Thanks for the comments which I have addressed. I suspect that there has been some change in the citation policy which I have missed. Also I was interested that you have run what appears to be an automatic program which, amongst other things, has changed all the <br> to <br />, although here WP advises <br> to produce line breaks (just interested). Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 10:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments and questions, though generally minor on this list, which is well done:
Response Thanks for the comments; I have dealt with what I can. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 14:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Note from Hassocks5489 Peter, the only alternative I can think of to fixing vertical images at 60x60 and centering them is to treat them the same as other images: i.e. not specifying alignment within the cell and fixing at 100px. (I have faced the same issue with my church and listed buildings lists.) I have IE as well, and I changed a few to 100px and previewed it (didn't save it). I thought it looked OK, although you have to decide whether the resulting uneven height of the rows is worse than the misalignment, which as you say only happens in some browsers. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 17:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:39, 24 October 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a companion list to List of new churches by John Douglas, a FL. Its format is precisely similar, and much of the text is common to both lists. It completes the ecclesiastical works of John Douglas. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 11:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
resolved issues from Bencherlite |
---|
;Comments from Bencherlite
Good work. A few small thoughts before I support:
|
Strong support – a well-researched and excellently-presented list, that is clearly the result of a lot of hard work, not just in writing the list, but in writing the supporting articles. This is the type of list and the sort of long-term effort that those people who complain about the unfairness of a minimal redlink criteria in WP:FL? would be well-advised to look at. This list would not be as worthwhile without links to articles about the churches.
In addition, you have clearly visited some of the churches on the list to take photographs, and spent time looking for free-use images elsewhere to upload to Commons. A particularly strong pat on the back for the alt-text (can't have been easy thinking of variations on the phrase "it's a church"). No dablink problems, external links fine, sources all look to be reliable print / web, images are all free-use at Commons. Bencherlite Talk 10:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Response. Thanks for the helpful comments. I have tried to answer all the points. I agree with your comments about the quality of Featured Lists; IMO they should be more than "good" lists and should also contain material of "added" value above what would be expected in a "good" list. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 13:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from
Hassocks5489
| |
---|---|
Comments from Hassocks5489 I ran through this in some depth a few days ago, before Bencherlite's comments. Most of the points I would have raised have been resolved: here are a few minor stylistic observations... The table itself
|
A
Table notes
Alt text
Refs
Other bits
|
Response. Thanks for the detailed review and the supportive comments. I have dealt with the points raised. To get John Douglas to FT will require much work on the two remaining lists; they are on structures more varied than churches, and supporting articles will not always be easy to write for every object. But thanks for the encouragement. Peter I. Vardy ( talk)
Comment - Why are there several dates in some churches? I just skimmed through the list, so I may have missed the explaination.— Chris! c/ t 00:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Response Thanks for the comments which I have addressed. I suspect that there has been some change in the citation policy which I have missed. Also I was interested that you have run what appears to be an automatic program which, amongst other things, has changed all the <br> to <br />, although here WP advises <br> to produce line breaks (just interested). Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 10:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments and questions, though generally minor on this list, which is well done:
Response Thanks for the comments; I have dealt with what I can. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 14:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Note from Hassocks5489 Peter, the only alternative I can think of to fixing vertical images at 60x60 and centering them is to treat them the same as other images: i.e. not specifying alignment within the cell and fixing at 100px. (I have faced the same issue with my church and listed buildings lists.) I have IE as well, and I changed a few to 100px and previewed it (didn't save it). I thought it looked OK, although you have to decide whether the resulting uneven height of the rows is worse than the misalignment, which as you say only happens in some browsers. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 17:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply