The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 17:52, 18 August 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for consideration as a featured list following copyediting and a peer review. The list includes all the churches designed by John Douglas and built. Nearly every church in the list has an article; the rest have a stub. Notes have been added about each church to give added value to the list. During the peer review the title was changed from "Works of John Douglas (new churches)" Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 19:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments by Doncram I'll give some quick reactions first, could come back with more comments later. I haven't yet looked at the previous peer review. First, I basically like the list-article, and see that it reflects various developments in historic place list-articles as implemented in previous FLC reviews (such as including coordinates and a link to the google/bing map, and more).
The word "new" in the title seems a bit odd. For one thing, these are not new churches. I see that you are looking for a way to distinguish this vs. other churches where Douglas did architectural modifications, and other complete building designs. Title-wise, I would prefer "List of churches designed by John Douglas" with an early clarification to be provided to mention that he also modified other churches. Or, why not have the article be about "Architectural works of John Douglas", with just short sections for other categories of his architectural work?
About the table formatting, I don't like how each cell is narrow and tall, at least in my browser view. The images are very small, and the Notes column is somewhat difficult/unpleasant to read. Could several columns be merged, perhaps for one to be "Location / Patron / Date" together? That would allow the Notes/description column to be together. Also, the "Refs" column is a waste of a column, visually, I think. Those footnotes could be added at the end of the Notes/description column. I am not sure what is best, but this seems like too many columns with too much whitespace due to the different amount of material in each one. Also perhaps the images could be larger?
I think adding mention of this FLC at wt:HSITES would be appropriate, if it is not already noted there. doncram ( talk) 19:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply
P.S. I see in the Peer review that User:Finetooth thinks otherwise, but I personally would prefer for the '''{{GeoGroupTemplate}}''' Google/Bing map link to appear sooner, perhaps to show next to the TOC, rather than in the "External links" section. I don't feel that strongly about it, but I don't know how strongly Finetooth feels either. Perhaps some other image could appear in the whitespace next to the TOC, too. doncram ( talk) 19:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Response to the above. Sorry I have not responded earlier but non-Wikilife intervened a bit. To reply to the points made above (not in the order made).
Comment on outline It's looking better, format-wise, for me. Also I am okay with the current title, for what that is worth. When I first skimmed the article i had not known about the other articles; I added the hatnote at the top of the current article pointing to the disambiguation for the other works (also covered in See also at bottom). The outline currently is:
* 1 New churches * 2 See also * 3 References o 3.1 Notes o 3.2 Bibliography * 4 External links
Since it is so simple, with only the one main section, I think it should be suppressed with a "__NOTOC__" at top of article. I am not familiar with what policy is for this exactly. doncram ( talk) 15:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Response. Agreed. Dunnit. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 16:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Combine all the works? I looked at all 4 of the works of John Douglas articles, and I wonder if they should just be combined into one article with 4 sections. The current sizes of the articles are something like 38k, 32k, 38k, and 33k. A total size of 140k or so is okay, despite being over the 100k level for which a mechanical wikipedia suggestion is generated suggesting an article might best be split. I think the 100k level is less relevant as a guideline than it was a year or two ago. Also, the size of the combined article could be less than the sum of the separate component articles' sizes. Currently, the same portrait of John Douglas, and much of the same introductory text, and several of the sources, are included in all four articles. For someone interested in John Douglas, why not provide one stop shopping? I think that some other list-articles on architects' works are quite long, including many hundreds of works, although not necessarily in tabular format as here. A possible reason why this could be developed in 4 parts is that the combined list seems too daunting to get through FLC? But, we should focus on what is best for readers, not for FL reviewers. Anyhow, I am not seeing why the list needs to be split into four, causing repetition, coordination issues, and naming issues. doncram ( talk) 17:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Present state After giving careful consideration to the discussion above, I have decided not to combine this list with any other and should be grateful if reviewers/assessors would give their opinions on the list as it stands. Ideas for improvements always welcomed, of course. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 09:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Support: I peer-reviewed this list and thought it was excellent, and it has only improved since then. It appears that all of the issues raised by others above have been addressed. Finetooth ( talk) 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Support. I was rather alarmed by the discussion above about merging this article. Longer lists may be fine for purely textual content, but when the elements of the list contain graphics, as in this case, I think it's better to have more smaller lists. -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 17:52, 18 August 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for consideration as a featured list following copyediting and a peer review. The list includes all the churches designed by John Douglas and built. Nearly every church in the list has an article; the rest have a stub. Notes have been added about each church to give added value to the list. During the peer review the title was changed from "Works of John Douglas (new churches)" Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 19:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments by Doncram I'll give some quick reactions first, could come back with more comments later. I haven't yet looked at the previous peer review. First, I basically like the list-article, and see that it reflects various developments in historic place list-articles as implemented in previous FLC reviews (such as including coordinates and a link to the google/bing map, and more).
The word "new" in the title seems a bit odd. For one thing, these are not new churches. I see that you are looking for a way to distinguish this vs. other churches where Douglas did architectural modifications, and other complete building designs. Title-wise, I would prefer "List of churches designed by John Douglas" with an early clarification to be provided to mention that he also modified other churches. Or, why not have the article be about "Architectural works of John Douglas", with just short sections for other categories of his architectural work?
About the table formatting, I don't like how each cell is narrow and tall, at least in my browser view. The images are very small, and the Notes column is somewhat difficult/unpleasant to read. Could several columns be merged, perhaps for one to be "Location / Patron / Date" together? That would allow the Notes/description column to be together. Also, the "Refs" column is a waste of a column, visually, I think. Those footnotes could be added at the end of the Notes/description column. I am not sure what is best, but this seems like too many columns with too much whitespace due to the different amount of material in each one. Also perhaps the images could be larger?
I think adding mention of this FLC at wt:HSITES would be appropriate, if it is not already noted there. doncram ( talk) 19:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply
P.S. I see in the Peer review that User:Finetooth thinks otherwise, but I personally would prefer for the '''{{GeoGroupTemplate}}''' Google/Bing map link to appear sooner, perhaps to show next to the TOC, rather than in the "External links" section. I don't feel that strongly about it, but I don't know how strongly Finetooth feels either. Perhaps some other image could appear in the whitespace next to the TOC, too. doncram ( talk) 19:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Response to the above. Sorry I have not responded earlier but non-Wikilife intervened a bit. To reply to the points made above (not in the order made).
Comment on outline It's looking better, format-wise, for me. Also I am okay with the current title, for what that is worth. When I first skimmed the article i had not known about the other articles; I added the hatnote at the top of the current article pointing to the disambiguation for the other works (also covered in See also at bottom). The outline currently is:
* 1 New churches * 2 See also * 3 References o 3.1 Notes o 3.2 Bibliography * 4 External links
Since it is so simple, with only the one main section, I think it should be suppressed with a "__NOTOC__" at top of article. I am not familiar with what policy is for this exactly. doncram ( talk) 15:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Response. Agreed. Dunnit. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 16:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Combine all the works? I looked at all 4 of the works of John Douglas articles, and I wonder if they should just be combined into one article with 4 sections. The current sizes of the articles are something like 38k, 32k, 38k, and 33k. A total size of 140k or so is okay, despite being over the 100k level for which a mechanical wikipedia suggestion is generated suggesting an article might best be split. I think the 100k level is less relevant as a guideline than it was a year or two ago. Also, the size of the combined article could be less than the sum of the separate component articles' sizes. Currently, the same portrait of John Douglas, and much of the same introductory text, and several of the sources, are included in all four articles. For someone interested in John Douglas, why not provide one stop shopping? I think that some other list-articles on architects' works are quite long, including many hundreds of works, although not necessarily in tabular format as here. A possible reason why this could be developed in 4 parts is that the combined list seems too daunting to get through FLC? But, we should focus on what is best for readers, not for FL reviewers. Anyhow, I am not seeing why the list needs to be split into four, causing repetition, coordination issues, and naming issues. doncram ( talk) 17:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Present state After giving careful consideration to the discussion above, I have decided not to combine this list with any other and should be grateful if reviewers/assessors would give their opinions on the list as it stands. Ideas for improvements always welcomed, of course. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 09:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Support: I peer-reviewed this list and thought it was excellent, and it has only improved since then. It appears that all of the issues raised by others above have been addressed. Finetooth ( talk) 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Support. I was rather alarmed by the discussion above about merging this article. Longer lists may be fine for purely textual content, but when the elements of the list contain graphics, as in this case, I think it's better to have more smaller lists. -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply