Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed buildings in Coventry/archive1

• Images need to have
  WP:ALT
  ; it should briefly explain the contents of them
  • Done. The captions are sufficient in most cases, but yes, we need to accommodate for screen readers.
• Unlink listed building per
  WP:OVERLINK
  • I think the link has value—only Brits will be familiar with the concept, and I'd wager that not many of them fully understand it.
• "Only around four per cent" Remove "only" per
  WP:NPOV
  • That's not POV. I think "only" is quite justified when talking about 4%.
• Speaking of that sentence, change "around" to "about" or something like that
  • Why?
• In that same sentence, per cent shouldn't be spaced; should be "percent"
  • Wiktionary says "per cent" is acceptable, and the source also uses that variation.
• "15th centuries" and "11th (CE) century" don't have hyphen, whereas "14th-century" does. Which is it?
  • When the phrase is used to describe something (eg 14th-century original), it becomes a compound adjective and thus requires a hyphen; used as a noun phrase, it doesn't need one. Or to put it another way, I'm better at writing articles than lists.
• "List of buildings" → "Buildings", as for title header
  • Why?
    • Done myself.
      andley 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Tables don't meet
  MOS:ACCESS
  , it has scope cols, but not scope rows, need to add scope rows also, to first one in each point of table
  • In English, please. The table format was copied from the (featured) Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester.
    • I got the concern myself. Doesn't matter what other Wikipedias have; each one has different separate rules.
      andley 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Also, tables don't meet
  MOS:DTT
  , add table captions to ensure it does; it has been listed as a "high priority"
  • Likewise.
    • Done myself. Also, see above.
      andley 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Add a period dot to "Ref"
  • Done.
• Just a suggestion, but I would align the references in that table to the center, don't feel like you have to though
  • That's actually quite a good idea, but with the column being so narrow, I don't think it makes a significant difference.
    • Thanks! That's okay then.
      andley 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• I don't believe a gallery section is needed. In fact, there is a policy which states that they shouldn't be here, but at Wikimedia Commons. See
  WP:IG
  , etc.
  • That policy says "[...] the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." But I'll consider Hassocks' suggestion below and get back to you.
• Why are red links in the see also section? Remove them.
  • Because they're notable, article-worthy subjects that will have articles in the near future. But you have a point, and I've hidden them until the links are blue.
    • Sounds good then.
      andley 22:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• In fact, I don't think that section is needed at all
  • I disagree.
• Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order
  • Actually, shouldn't Category:Coventry be first? But for what purpose is beyond me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Dormer Cottage is Grade II, not Grade I. The city council list has an error.
  • Interesting. I couldn't find the National Heritage List entry for Dormer Cottage to reconcile the contradiction. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place; thanks.
• I find the justification for including Coombe Abbey weak. The building is not within the boundary of the city, so it is out of the scope of the list, in my view; the scope of the list is geographic, not based on ownership.
  • I include it because the Council mention it on their list, and so I think it's worthy of noting here, and including it in the list with an explanatory note is probably the neatest way of doing it.
• In relation to images, consider adopting the format used here. This avoids the need for a gallery.
  • I'll consider it. I'm hesitant, because I'm not sure the images are useful at a low enough resolution to fit comfortably into the table.
• Having a couple of sentences of notes about the building (as in the example above) would also be beneficial, even though each entry does have its own article. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've hit the nail on the head—each entry has its own article, which contains more information than can be squashed into the table, so I'm not sure there's a lot to be achieved from adding details into the table. I generally prefer to keep prose and tables separate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Hassocks:

• In relation to making the Ref column unsortable, this code should work: ! scope="col" class="unsortable"
  • This is, I believe, done.
• As per TRM's note below, I am still troubled by the inclusion of Coombe Abbey, as it is already legitimately included within Grade I listed buildings in Warwickshire. I would be happy with your suggestion of adding a note below the main table explaining the situation. I have faced the similar scenarios when doing various lists—e.g. listed buildings that have been demolished but not delisted, buildings that may or may not have been churches etc—and a short explanatory paragraph at the end does the job.
  • I've taken it out of the table and added a note to the lead.
• I'll have another look after you've had a go at the images column. I also have a strong desire to see a notes blurb/column, as TRM says below. I will check back when I can, but unfortunately I only have internet access at work for the time being (I have moved house and the new internet connection is not ready yet – could be a while!). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added both an images column and a description column. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More from Hassocks, following the resolution of the above

• All of my earlier points are resolved to my satisfaction. Re Peter's comments below: I agree with the use of a separate "Refs" column rather than integrating them into the body of the Notes. Although both styles have proven to be acceptable at FLC, I find having a separate column is more appropriate for the reasons given by the nominator. I too prefer decimal coordinates over grid references, but HJ's rationale for using the latter is sound.
• I have spotted something else though. I fear that some of the details described in the Notes column—particularly those not directly related to the architecture of the building—are not actually referenced at the moment, in that they are not mentioned in the refs provided. For each building, the Cov city council list and the National Heritage List description are used to reference the content of the row. I spot-checked certain entries (I have not checked all). Examples: for St John the Baptist Church, Coventry, neither source mentions the bit about "sent to Coventry". For St Mary's Hall, again the Mary, Queen of Scots part is in neither cited source. I think we really need citations for all these bits (not that I doubt their veracity, I should add). At a guess, various pages of the Victoria County History should help to support all/most of the historical/social facts in the blurbs; or perhaps the Ian Soden book cited in the lead. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've dug up the sources from these in other articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think it's a shame we can't add a summary of what each building's purpose/notability is here, I made a similar comment at the Maidstone FLC currently running. I know there are articles for each building, but for our featured material to be heavily reliant on sub-articles seems a real shame. I think a model more like Listed buildings in Widnes is appropriate. Our FLs expand for "listed buildings" and "churches" so why not "Grade I listed buildings"?
• " in the City of Coventry" is it necessary to say "the City of"? And if you insist, should City really be capitalised?
  • City of Coventry is the proper name of the metropolitan borough. -HJ
• I think the article could legitimately link Coventry, while a common geographical term to us English, perhaps not so for our global audience.
  • I agree. I believe linking in the bold title is discouraged, but I'll see if I can work a link in elsewhere. -HJ
• "There are 20 Grade I " vs "Of the 21 buildings on this list..."
  • The list includes Coombe Abbey, which owned by Coventry City Council but falls just the wrong side of the city boundary. I'm open to the possibility of removing Coombe Abbey if multiple people really think it's confusing or out of scope. -HJ
• If you use ref 1 every time, just have it as a general reference.
• "St. Mary's Priory" is a dab link.
  • "
    St. Mary's Priory and Cathedral
    . -HJ
• Ref column shouldn't be sortable.
  • I'm really not very proficient with tables. Could I trouble you to explain how I remove the sortability, or even demonstrate for the benefit of the II* listed buildings which will be making an appearance here at some point? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I would add a column for the image of each place rather than that rather unsightly gallery at the end.
  • I seem to be in a minority on this issue, so I'll work the images into the table, much as I think the gallery is better. -HJ
• You should link all linkable items every time in a sortable table (e.g. Bayley Lane).
  • That's the first time I've heard that, but I suppose it makes sense—it just goes against every instinct I've had drilled into me at FAC! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC) OK, images worked into the table (I still the the gallery was better, but I'll concede the point) and descriptions added. I think all the rest of your comments have been addressed by myself or Rock drum. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]