User talk:Peter I. Vardy/Archive 18

nominate

) 00:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Peter I. Vardy! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for St Paul's Church, Witherslack

DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oddfellows' Hall, Chester

Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! , cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, given that you are adding St. Michael's Churches, I thought I would let you know that just a few days ago, by chance, I figured out how it all started: at the Michaelion. I just finished it - will DYK it in a few days. History2007 (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; an interesting article. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is a gallery here and one here and they do not even have a UK section, in case you want to add your UK images there to make those well rounded. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an idea; but it will have to wait until I have completed my current projects. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, the churches are not going anywhere, unless of course

Raffaello Follieri has an English cousin and sells them all before you get to it.... History2007 (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Started Woodbank (house). Know anything about it? I suspect its the Vernon Park Museum now? There's also a Woodbank in Derbyshire. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm looking on google maps it could be what is now a nursery? Where did you get this name from?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've not had time to do this (working in a sandbox on a better list of the works of Thomas Harrison). Suggest a different title; on a quick Google search I have found houses called Woodbank in Co. Armagh, Aberdeen, and Surrey (and that's on the first page). Suggest Woodbank, Stockport as the title. The best online ref is here in the National Heritage List. Further info in Pevsner. This shows that it is NOT Vernon Park, it is not in Turncroft Lane (it's in Woodbank Park), and it's no longer a museum (or a country house). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its to the east of Vernon, could be what is now the nursery. Nope its not the nursery looked at the source.Thanks for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's at 53°24′36″N 2°07′52″W / 53.41001°N 2.13112°W / 53.41001; -2.13112. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is now the nursery as I had thought then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...has just been listed by English Heritage! I was doing my usual trawl of the new website looking for newly listed stuff, and came across St Paul's Church at Strines near New Mills on the GM/Derbyshire border. Sounds like quite an interesting building. Tin tabernacles are very thin on the ground down here in Sussex; one was demolished a couple of years ago at a place called Vine's Cross, causing a bit of an outrage. Anyway, hope all is well with you; I'm still trying to find a comprehensive source for an expansion of St Mary's Church, Westham. I think Eastbourne Library has a book on it, so next time I'm over there...! Likewise for the other two Paley & Austin restorations down that way. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that interesting news; it's unusual for a tin tabernacle to be listed. I've added a bit about it to the article. I'm working mainly at present on Edmund Sharpe, the creator of the Paley, Austin etc practice, having received a very detailed biography on CD. Also a major work on the whole practice is to be published within the next few months. Also getting interested in Thomas Harrison (architect) who designed a lot of bridges and Neoclassical buildings in Lancaster, Chester, and Shropshire. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter,

I'm researching Liverpool Collegiate School for a new Wiki page and found the information about Rushworth and Dreaper supplying the new organ to the Liverpool Collegiate SCHOOL in 1913. The Liverpool Collegiate Institution became the Liverpool Collegiate School (the correct name from 1908 to 1985 and in its new incarnation to the present), a change which was cemented by the 1908 purchase of the Shaw Street building by the newly formed Local Education Authority. The 'Institution' tag had been dropped by 1913 replaced by 'School'.

I'd leave the link to the 'Institution' page for now, but it would be better if it linked to the new page 'Liverpool Collegiate School' when it's up on Wiki, hopefully very soon.

Keith Bates (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Keith. Sorry I was trying to be "helpful"" by making a red link go blue! I did not realise you were working on this. I guess you will move the "...Institution" title to "...School" sooner or later. The article certainly needs some improvements, especially citations. Good luck. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, as a church specialist could you have a look at this article. I think the name is wrong and it should be moved but I'm surprised that it doesn't appear to be dedicated to a saint and moving it to Euxton parish church might not be the best answer. If it isn't dedicated to a saint is this unusual in churches of this age? NtheP (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the title should be Euxton Parish Church. According to A Church Near You, the official CoE website, it does not have a dedication (this is not usual, but a dedication is not mandatory). But what worries me most about the article is that its contents are almost completely cut and paste from the sources (although some good work has been done in finding the sources). At first I thought that the creator must be a newbie. Although his/her first contributions were in 2007, they have been sparse, and he/she is clearly inexperienced and I guess could do with some help (don't have time myself). What do you think? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this article this morning and was planning on doing a little cleanup later. As a listed church, it's probably notable, but I'm not 100% surprised the article is a copy/paste. I'll try to sort it out a bit later today if no one else has got to it. --BelovedFreak 12:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for for your intervention. It looks an interesting church, the sources are there, and it certainly merits an article. Good luck. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both. NtheP (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - bizarre! I did try looking at Wikipedia:Images and some linked articles but couldn't find anything about what to do with sideways photos ("rotating images" seems to be something different). There's a Category:Images for cleanup and also one with the same name on Commons, but perhaps you have a guru who knows more about these things than I do. I hope you agree that the sideways photo is better than the other one, which (to my mind) has too much extra clutter.

You might be interested in Talk:York#York_Union_Banking_Company (or you may not!). Also, the bank's name has never had an apostrophe - see Barclays. Best. --GuillaumeTell 18:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, thanks - now I know the protocols for next time Manytexts (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from

Thanks - I didn't know about the template. It's certainly a better place to put the TOC and the template is a better way of putting it there. --Northernhenge (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only discovered it this morning when I was messing about, wondering what would be the best compromise. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 08:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Yorkshire Rose
	WikiProject Yorkshire
	Award of Merit
	for valued contributions to Yorkshire articles on Wikipedia
	For your work on St James' Church, Melsonby Farrtj (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for St Philip's Church, Salford

DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have knocked up an article for the under-appreciated architect John Coates Carter. It may be that he designed a church or two that have fallen under your notice. I have already linked St Teilos in Llandorey, but there may be others. Thanks, FruitMonkey (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article and for letting me know about it. I don't recall JCC cropping up in any of the articles I have written; I've done very little on Arts and Craft style buildings. But I'll keep him in mind. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter, I saw your excellent article on St John the Baptist's Church, Llanrothal, to which I have added an image (and which I hope is a minor improvement). I wonder would you be able, and/or interested, in having a go at an article for this church in Monmouth? You can see a little discussion at Talk:Monmouth if you are interested. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind comment. I am going to decline your request for two reasons. First, I am involved in a number of other projects, and don't really have the time at present. Secondly, I do not have much access to Welsh sources for such an article. I'm sure you could find someone involved with Welsh matters who could do the job! Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no worries. Thanks for your rapid reply. (I think we need an article for Llanrothal village itself, so maybe I'll try that one!) Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St Nicholas' Church, Wrea Green a little, using a different source. Am still searching for a good ref for the 2007 extension there. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That's much better than I would have done it! And I used to run past St Nicholas in great agony when we were forced to do "cross country running" from Kirkham Grammar School when it was too frosty to engage in rugby. Happy (?} memories. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I would have thought that "The Grapes" looks a lot cosier to most people running past! But I'm sure (just like my article conrribution) that it's not any better at all. In fact it's a shame that KGS doesn't have its own article, that could be linked out from the Kirkham article. I'm sure it's worthy of one. Might be a good project for some ICT student there?! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it does, and it's here, but it needs a lot of work to improve it. As you say, a good project for someone ... Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, so it does. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peter I. Vardy, and thank you for your contributions!

Some text in an article that you worked on List of miscellaneous works by G. E. Street, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, List of domestic buildings by G. E. Street. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on

Tag removed by me, clearly a false positive. Regards,

Bencherlite^Talk 17:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Should also have said what a lovely group of lists you've got there! Your work-rate (and its quality, of course) is very impressive!

Bencherlite^Talk 20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the comment. I should really settle down to writing articles rather than compiling these lists, but I have become fascinated by the amount of output and the variety of works of those Victorian architects. And it's better than watching TV!. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter,

As a distraction from Scheduled Monuments I've been "improving" a couple of Lancashire templates. While you may have noticed that I've made a couple of tweaks to the live template, I've made a copy of it in an attempt to incorporate the colour scheme used in Template:Infobox historic site. While it seemed a good idea, I'm struggling to achieve a look that I'm happy with. Any suggestions, or should I give up? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I'm not a great fan of these templates, but applaud you for the work you have done by incorporating the "official" colours of the listing grades. However I note that Grade I has a coloured border, while the others are solidly filled with colour. IMO they should be consistent, one way or the other. (My choice would be for black text on a solidly coloured background (as the colours were originally used).) No strong feelings, really. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about that? Also as I've been pondering one for the scheduled monuments and potentially listed houses why are you not a fan, if I might ask? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC) PS the Monuments list is starting to take shape, any help or suggestions you could offer would be greatly appreciated.[reply]

I suppose it's a blind spot! The template looks much better IMO. And the scheduled monuments list is coming on well; keep at it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter, just wanted to say how pleased I was to find an addition to Hindsford when I got back from my day out yesterday. J3Mrs (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hope it's OK. Please improve it if you can (I "stole" a reference from the Hindsford article.) It's part of my project to write articles on all the churches built or restored by the Sharp/Paley/Austin architects of Lancaster; amazingly prolific over such a long period of time. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, sorry to be a pedant, but I came across your article on St John's Church and notice that you have listed it as being in Low Fell. It isn't- the Church is very much part of Low Fell's neighbour, Sheriff Hill (see here [1]) Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a pedant at all, we need accuracy! Please feel free to correct it (and to improve the article}. As a Cestrian I am (obviously) ignorant of the geography of the area. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peter. Whilst viewing this page I noticed a number of errors. The website url is no longer live, so should be removed. This article states that the church was built between 1827 and 1828 with a completion date of 1883. The correct dates are ground breaking in 1827 and a completion date in 1829, the church opened on 19th Sept 1829. The work that took place in 1883 (we have it in our records as 1887) was an addition to an already completed church, in 1829. I hardly think that (some 54 years later) people would have decided to complete the building of the church. The church is described in your article as Gothic Revival, it should be Early Gothic Revival. You have the original building costs correct, but our church could not be built again at a cost of £700,000, considering it is insured for a rebuild cost in todays world at £7 million. The article states that the clock face has been removed, it was restored in 2001.

I was recently reading (from our church safe) an abstract of the land deeds that the Bower sisters had to provide to prove that that they were the owners of the land that the church stands on, and that they sold it to the church. There is a romanticised view that they donated the land for the building of a church, the land was sold by them, not donated. All here in our safe, dating back to 1729. Jacob Ogden was the original owner of the land, and then a timeline is given until the Bower Sisters acquired the land and sold it.

I tend to trust what is wriiten on Wikipedia as the law, a totally trusted source - not to be disputed. From what I've read about what has been written about my church, I think I will take what Wikipedia reveals with a pinch of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.225.172 (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message; I appreciate your comments. But it is not a good idea to rely on Wikipedia as a "the law, a totally trusted source", and its contents SHOULD, where appropriate, be disputed. Wikipedia contains errors. I understand that there are errors in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and I know that there are errors in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. And these are written by carefully chosen experts. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia "that anyone can edit". Some of the contributors are experts, but most are interested amateurs who are anxious to make information more widely and freely available. To provide some safeguard against errors, it is required that all contributions should be properly referenced, preferably with inline citations, to reliable sources. These sources include articles in peer-reviewed journals, books published by acknowledged publishers, etc. Original research is not allowed (and this includes such things as "I have seen it so I know it"). It has to be possible for the reader to be able to check the information in Wikipedia against these published sources to confirm that it is accurate.

So where does it leave this article? What is written is taken from sources generally agreed to be authoritative and reliable: Port's book is the standard publication on Commissioners' churches, the Buildings of England series (commonly known as "Pevsner") is an acknowledged source of general architectural information, and the National Heritage List for England is prepared and published by English Heritage, a respected source. I am not saying that there are no errors in these sources; what I am saying is that these are the best sources available to me, and on which I based my contribution. It may well be that there are other and better sources, but I am not aware of them, and simply did the best I could with what is available to me.

Looking in detail at the sources, there are problems for the Wikipedia editor. The Buildings of England (Pevsner) book and Port both say the church was built in 1827–28, but the National Heritage List for England (NHL) says 1835! Both Pevsner and the NHL say that the apse was added in 1883; so in in taking these dates I took the "majority" view, andfor the earlier date, the one that seemed to fit better with the dates of the Commissioner's first round of grants. The difference between Gothic Revival and early Gothic Revival is surely pedantic; and the first embraces the second. The comparative prices are not there to provide an estimate of current replacement costs, but rather to give the reader a general idea of the cash values "then and now", or as the source says, for "measuring worth".

Regarding the "date of completion", this is arguable. One could say that the church as it is now, with its apse, was not finally completed until 1883 (or 1887), or one could say that the main part of the church was completed in 1828 (or 1829) and that the apse was just a later addition. As for the clock face, you will appreciate that it is difficult from the sources available to keep up with all the changes that have and can be made. The NHL says that it had been removed, but that was written, I think at the time of listing, in 1993. Pevsner, published in 2004 is vague; it refers just to a "prominent clock surround".

So what can we do to ensure the up-to-date accuracy of the article? Well, we need some reliable PUBLISHED material, something in a book or in an article in a peer-reviewed journal. Or we might manage with a published history just of the church itself, either in pamphlet form or, even better, on a church website (a pity there is not one).

To get more information on some of the points I have raised you might like to read some or all of the following (click on the links):

6, and 7. Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Peter – just seen this one. Nice work as ever. I believe he did some work just before his death on St Mary's Church at Rye as well; I have a few books I can check for this. I think some of his proposed work was carried out by his son after his death; I'm not sure who did what, so I'll do some research.

On another note: apparently some recent research suggests that G.E.S. has been incorrectly credited with designing St Luke's Church in Milland. English Heritage ([2]) gives it to G.E.S., but by the time of Robert Elleray's Victorian Churches of Sussex it becomes "G.E. Street (?)". Then according to the Sussex Parish Churches website, a piece was published in The Victorian in 2002 suggesting that the architect was in fact one W.C. Street, who is unrelated. He also designed the church at Wick, near Littlehampton. I haven't read the piece, so some more investigation would be needed. Pevsner moans that it is "nasty and fussy", but unfortunately doesn't offer any names! None of my other Sussex church books do, either. I'll keep it on my list of things to look into! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St Mary's in Rye is included in Jenkins' England's Thousand Best Churches. He does not mention Street by name but says that "no rebuilding was as drastic as that of the Victorians." The clock there, he says, has a 16th Century mechanism that is "one of tbe oldest working in England"; also, apparently, there is a

ISBN 978-0-141-03930-5). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

To change the subject, how are you finding the search facility on the National List? I have read some critical (even angry) comments about it. I relied greatly on it for the Street lists, assuming I had a complete collection, getting 459 "hits" (including other Streets, of course). I then had a go at Waterhouse, and got just 80 hits - a complete nonsense. Eventually I found more buildings containing "Waterhouse" within the text but not discovered, so the search facility is obviously not reliable. The List is kept up-to-date, a clear improvement on Images, but the descriptions vary from excellent to awful; the bad ones should be improved. Cadw do a much better job in this respect, but I find their search facility near-impossible to use. Best wishes to both. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the NHLE ... searching by location is great, but searching by name is painful. So far I have only had to do so once, when I was writing Clayton & Black (prolific Brighton architects) and wanted to see if they had done any listed works outside the city, and also find the descriptions for each of their listed buildings in the city. What a hassle it was! I was getting false positives (it was finding all the "Black"s and all the "Clayton"s; searching for "Clayton & Black" did not seem to be possible), and some of their buildings were not coming up at all. Luckily I could search for them by building name. Anyway, and in relation to another of your points, I then discovered that one of their buildings was missing ... it turned out that the listing description attributed it to a completely different architect, and got the year wrong! (Confusingly, there used to be two Natwest banks on the same street in Brighton, both of which were listed; Godfrey Pinkerton did one, and Clayton & Black did the other. They attributed Clayton & Black's to Pinkerton, and did not offer any name for Pinkerton's!) To be fair, I followed their procedure for notifying errors, and they corrected the listing within 3 days.

In terms of searching: in my job I work extensively with databases and extracting data from them. Based on how the listing details pages are set up, it looks like the search function is geared to finding data in the summary fields they have at the top of each listing: "Name", "List entry number", "County", "District", "District Type", "Parish", "Grade", "Date first listed" and "Date of most recent amendment". It seems to work very well when searching these. This suggests each of these bits of data is held as a separate field in the database, whereas everything else is just in a single "Details" field – which makes it unreliable to search. What they should do is add an "Architect" field, populate it where the architect is known and leave it blank otherwise, and display it in the "List Entry Summary" section. Then we could search properly, using full names, surnames, combinations of names etc. Maybe they will make an enhancement in the future!

Assuming you have been working on Alfred Waterhouse, he did the original Hove Town Hall in 1882, which sadly burnt down in 1966. It's on my "to-do" list of Brighton and Hove articles to write. Quite a pleasant building, by all accounts. Now there is a Brutalist replacement, which is admittedly very nice inside! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched a few databases but I hate searching that site. I thought I would go mad when I tried to find Manchester Town Hall. J3Mrs (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Rye: Sussex Parish Churches says that "A E Street in 1882-83 restored the nave, previously disfigured by galleries (3 p514), to designs by his late father, G. E. Street (CDK 1883 pt 2 p164 and BN 44 p647), who had examined the church in 1877 (WSRO Ep II/27/67) and advised restoring it in sections, though only the nave was done." (Also, the East Sussex Shell Guide (by W. S. Mitchell) says (p. 162) that the clerestory was rebuilt in 1882 but doesn't say by whom). Presumably the fact that the designs were by G.E.S. qualifies them for your list even though they were realised after his death. --GuillaumeTell 18:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! I may leave this to the Sussex expert! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask your advice on the naming convention for churches? I'm working on listed buildings in

Thanks for your query. There is certainly no rule, and I don't think there is a convention as such. Certainly the most used form is "St X's Church"; see

Church of St John Maddermarket, its usual title, Maddermarket reflecting the location (there will always be exceptions). So I suggest you please yourself! Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Your work really is impressive. The sustained, comprehensive, high quality contributions are a, sometimes embarrassing, inspiration to us "stubbers". I'd give you a star if you needed another, and if I knew how. KJP1 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message; I don't need stars and things — your comments are sufficient! Actually I only stray into Wales when Welsh buildings are part of something else I am doing, like redundant churches, or buildings by John Douglas or other architects in whom I interested. And I do have difficulty in using the Cadw website. But there's plenty to do in England! Every power to you and to Wales! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted that they've had one of their few unlisted churches listed! St Margaret's Church, Burnage was given Grade II status last week. Some useful general info in the listing details (I'm glad they write much more extensive descriptions than they used to!). No luck finding a suitably licenced image after a quick look this morning, but I've made the necessary changes to the article and the list. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that and for your amendments. It's good to see a detailed description; I think these are now based on the report that now has to be produced before a building is accepted for listing (I've had some experience of this in making personal applications for listing of buildings in Runcorn — one success, two failures). I'll have to expand the text ... one day! Do you know of any way that we can keep up with new listings, apart from just spotting them by chance? Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any systematic way to do it, unfortunately. What I have been doing for the last few months is checking the website once a day for new entries: doing it regularly makes it easy to remember what was there last time and what is new! Then I scan down the list looking for anything interesting: I look at all churches, wherever they are, and any new listing in Sussex. (To do this, I select "Designation date" under the "Advanced search" option, then select the current month and year. This also captures any updated listings – where buildings have been upgraded or new descriptions added, which is quite useful.) Doing it so regularly means I shouldn't miss anything, hopefully! Interesting to hear about your submissions for listed status: I have often wondered how to go about doing that, as there are a few buildings down my way that I feel could be listable. What did you have to do, and what were your experiences of the process? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it sounds tedious. To make an application for listing go to this. My experiences: it takes a very long time; they are meticulous (and pleasant when you chase what's happening); and my three outcomes were pretty much what I expected. You might also like to have a read of this. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is of course great, so I'm looking at it as I would an FAC nomination, which is what I think you want. It's really important to get the lead nice and slick I think, so that's where I've started:

Lead

• "During this time he was also involved in building and designing railways in Northwest England". What does "involved in" mean? It's a pretty floppy phrase that could really mean anything. And I see that it's used three times in the lead, which is probably at least one time too many.
• "He returned to Lancaster in 1866, where he designed his last church, St Paul, Scotforth." Isn't it more relevant that St Paul is in Lancaster rather than where Sharpe was when he designed it?
• "While working as an architect in Lancaster, Sharpe was also involved in civic affairs." As Sharpe left Lancaster in 1856 but returned in 1866 it isn't clear what the chronology is here.

Early life

• "Edmund later continued his education at Greenwich, and became its head boy." Greenwich isn't a school, so how could he become its head boy? And later than what?
• "The second paragraph begins by calling him Edmund, but switches to Sharpe halfway through.
• "Subsequently he graduated B.A. in 1833 ...". It's not all clear by now who "he" is referring to.

Personal and family life

• "The seven years he spent there were later described as 'perhaps the happiest years of his life'". By whom?
• "A plaque to his memory was also placed in the chancel of St Paul's, next to that of his wife." Why "also"? There's been no mention of any other plaque.

Other interests

• "During his early life, Sharpe developed interests in cricket and in rowing, which he was later to continue." The lead says cricket and archery, doesn't mention rowing. What does "developed interests in" mean? Financial interests? And what did he "later continue", as you can't "later continue" an interest? Either you continue it or you don't.

Appraisal

• "There can be no such thing as a "typical" Sharpe church". Why "can be no such thing", as opposed to "is no such thing"?
• "As an architectural historian, Hughes considers Sharpe to be 'in the top rank'"". It's not entirely clear who is being described as the architectural historian; the way it's written it looks like it's Hughes.
• "... his planning of railways in northwest England". It was capitalised as "Northwest England" in the lead.
• "Sharpe was considered to be the leading authority in England on Cistercian abbeys ...". Such statements almost always provoke the question "by whom"?

• Many thanks for the above. I've tried to deal with all the points, but I'm still not happy with the lead. Does it work? And is there more to do before the lions' den? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't been through the whole article yet, hopefully I'll be able to finish off this evening.
  Fatuorum 14:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I thought there must be more to come! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Not too much more hopefully, and I'm sure I can finish off later today. I've taken another look at the lead, and reorganised the first paragraph in particular. I think it flows a bit better now, what do you think?

  Fatuorum 14:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I mucked up a bit on List of church restorations and alterations by Anthony Salvin; Pevsner said the whole of the 1859 restoration was by Henry Woodyer, but it looks like he only did part of it and Salvin did work in 1859 and 1881. I should have checked first! Never mind; I think 1859; 1881 in the date field will be the best solution. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are limited (and sometimes confused) by what the sources say! But let me take this opportunity to say how impressed I am by the quality of your church articles. I guess you have much better sources than I have managed to find for Cheshire. My articles are in comparison mere minnows, but at least they are a start than can be built upon in due course.

Incidentally, I have asked EH about the provision of information about new listings, changes in grading etc. They say it is not available at present, but they are hoping to provide something of this sort in the future. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pevsner made a mistake. Rare, but not unknown in the Sussex volume! I'm lucky in that there are a lot of good-quality sources for Sussex churches ... for a typical medieval church I might have anything up to about 15 "standard" books to check, plus the Victoria County History, the listing info and sometimes whole books on the history of the church. Also, I'm told that the Sussex Archaeological Collections (journals of the S.A. Society, with literally thousands of long and short articles on churches over the last 150+ years) are the leading examples of county-specific local and archaeological history publications. All the reference libraries round here hold them; my photocopying bills are sometimes large!! Interesting info on the EH guidance; it would be very useful indeed to have something official published, not least because info could potentially be incorporated into articles when discussing the importance of a particular church. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	treasures of English churches
	Thank you for unveiling the hidden treasures of English churches with amazing consistency, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's kind of you. The churches of course are graced by your excellent articles on church music, especially the Bach cantatas. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Actually we were fortunate to get instructions from the Director of Music at Salisbury Cathedral IN the cathedral, "If ye love me", memorable! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]