Talk:Chester Cathedral

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Chester Cathedral has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on March 3, 2008.
April 3, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Assessment Report

  1. The article needs to be expanded.
  2. It should continue to make use of sections.
  3. References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

Peter I. Vardy 13:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from mainspace

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.

"Due to the tapered shape of the tower, the very elevated location and steep angle of the louvers, the fact that the bell frame is placed directly on to the concrete support girders, and the two concrete floors between the bells and bell ringers, the acoustics of the bells are very poor, both outside for the general public and inside for the ringers.[citation needed] Outside the bells are deafening in the close vicinity of the tower, yet barely audible at the grand west doors of the Cathedral.[citation needed] Inside, the bells are very indistinct due to the concrete floors and the lack of padding between the frame and concrete girders."

--Mcginnly | Natter 17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also moving the organist's roll-call - WP:NOT a directory.

[edit] Organists

  • 1541 John Brycheley
  • 1551 Thomas Barnes
  • 1558 Richard Saywell
  • 1567 Robert White
  • 1570 Robert Stevenson
  • 1599 Thomas Bateson
  • 1609 John Alien
  • 1613 Michael Done
  • 1614 Thomas Jones
  • 1637 Richard Newbold
  • 1642 Randolph Jewitt
  • 1661 Rev. Peter Stringer
  • 1673 John Stringer
  • 1686 William Key
  • 1699 John Mounterratt
  • 1705 Edmund White
  • 1715 Samuel Davies
  • 1726 Benjamin Worrall
  • 1727 Edmund Baker
  • 1765 Edward Orme
  • 1776 John Bailey
  • 1803 Edward Bailey
  • 1823 George Black
  • 1824 Thomas Haylett
  • 1841 Frederick Gunton
  • 1877 Joseph Cox Bridge
  • 1925 J. T. Hughes
  • 1930 Charles Hylton Stewart
  • 1932 Malcolm Boyle
  • 1949 James Middleton
  • 1964 John Sanders
  • 1967 Roger Fisher
  • 1997 David Poulter

--Mcginnly | Natter 17:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

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)

14th century choir stall with canopy, note misericord and the delicately carved bench ends.

The vaulted ceiling of the choir

I intend to reshoot this from further back (when the lecturn has been moved)

The Cathedra

Choir carving 1 - Elephant and castle - note the feet of a horse, demonstrating that the carver had learnt of elephants by word of mouth.

Choir carving 2 - Dean's chair?

Westminster window - Modern stained glass from the south aisle of the nave

Glass from the south transept

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)

[edit] Chester Cathedral again

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)

Thanks for that. I'll have a go. I suspect I am stronger on content than on style! Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:01, 20 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)

It shows the value of a pair of outside eyes. Although what I said about the organ is what the source says, in fact the choir organ is a division of the main organ (and I can verify that from attendance at organ recitals); text amended accordingly. Your idea of a plan is excellent (maybe essential) but I have a problem with including one. I do not have the expertise to produce one myself and to copy one may run into copyright difficulties. The best plan I have found is at Chester Tourist but I am pretty sure this is under copyright, and I have no clue how to satisfy the obligation of a fair use rationale. The one at National Image Library I think demands a fee. There are older, probably out of copyright, but much less clear plans such as Intaglio Fine Art and Ash Rare Books and, perhaps the best "oldie" (dated 1893) at Images of Medieval Art and Architecture. What do you think? Thanks for the contributions made so far. Oh, and I should like to use the image of the exquisite choir canopy and a misericord on Talk:Chester Cathedral - but how do you fit it all in (maybe swap it with the one of the ceiling)? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The Chester Tourist plan looks perfect. My understanding is that we draw an image ourselves, based on that one, then there are no copyright problems. I'll have a go at producing one if you like. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that would be ideal. Hope it does not take too much valuable time. Peter Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've made a start on the plan, and I'll hopefully be able to upload something tomorrow, but Monday at the latest. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No rush. I meant to say "too much of your valuable time"! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've finished it, and added it to the article. If you see any errors, let me know. I wasn't sure whether to draw it in the same east-west orientation as the graphic on the cathedral's web site, or north-south as in most of the older maps, but I settled on east-west in the end. It would be very easy to rotate the graphic 90 degrees to produce a north-south orientation though, if there's some convention to do so. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:39, 23 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)

Swapping the images sounds good to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I find it easier to do copyediting in bursts, coming back with a fresh eye from time to time, so I may make a few more suggestions, but I'd say that this article is definitely worth a punt a GA now. You've done a great job with it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Done a bit more polishing and submitted it as a GAC. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:21, 25 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)

If you or Peter want to replace my plan with something else that's fine with me. I'm not wedded to it. :-) If we're going to stick with my version, then I'll be quite happy to remove the text, if there's general agreement to do that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a stab at another and we can make our minds up then. PS. seems the Rev. Joanna Jepson was the curate of St Michael's Church, Chester and so nothing to do with the Cathedral. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I like the clarity of M's plan. The older one (see my comment above) is the best I have found out there in the public domain. As it is, it's rather overcrowded and, because of the constraints of Wikipedia, would not look good on first glance. But if it can be clarified, that might be a better option. I await the actions of the experts!
I agree about the dry style: with the content it's a bit difficult to cheer it up. Let's see how it gets on as a GAC and then if there's a will towards going for FAC, see what we and other editors come up with. What do you think? Oh, and is it possible to have the images (thanks J for even more) also on Commons? I think people will be more likely to see them there via the commonscat link than to realise they are on the talk page. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little wary of uploading to the commons - they seem to have odd ways of doing things over there sometimes - no fair use etc. I was also hoping to do the plan in a similar way to the clickable map here, but linking directly to the images. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The photos are too good to languish just on this page so I have incorporated them into a gallery in the article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A little spice

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)

Wow, that really is some work you've done! I've put my comments on the same page, interspersed with your ideas. Sorry some of them are a bit negative. If you think there's anything reliable and relevant to be added to the article, please do so. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extra bits of information that could be added to the article

I've come across these bits of information, but I'm not sure how best to incorporate them in the article:

  • There are Norman columns in the cellars that support the abbot's great hall (Home, p. 15)
  • Home p. 18 says that "the men of Hanbury fled to Chester in 1875, taking with them in a litter the body of St. Werburgh, which the chronicler avers "was then for the first time dissolved into dust". Her body was laid in the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, which was afterwards rededicated in her honour as the Church of St. Werburch and St. Oswald". Note that the date disagrees with [1] by some 32 years...

More to come when I have the time... Mike Peel (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

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)

That's great: the first GA I have worked on to be accepted with no quibbles. Thanks to all who have contributed, especially Malleus Fatuorum, and Joopercoopers for the superb photos. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Added to the Anglicanism portal. Congrats. -- Secisek (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I was invited to do some work on this article months ago, but there was an edit war raging. I'm now trying to bring the architectural stuff up to scratch.
There is a piece of information that I want. About the Church of St Oswald, which operated as a separate entity. I want to know at whhat time this came about. I see four obvious possibilities, but the reason might be entirely different. Perhaps someone could research this locally.
  • The transept is huge, like a second nave. Was it in fact built as a discrete church?
  • Between 1538 and 1541 there was a two year gap when the monastery ceased to exist and before the cathedral was founded. Did the local congregation continue to use that part of the church?
  • Did it happen during the interregnum, when, I assume, havoc was wrought in the building, as it was elsewhere?. Congregations sometimes salvaged enough of the smashed glass to make a section of the building weatherproof and functional. However, I have no idea to what extent Chester suffered, except that its stalls miraculously remained unburnt.
  • Alternately, was there a parish church of St Oswald that was lost to fire, flood or other devastation, so that the cathedral came to the rescue of the homeless congregation?
The again, maybe they didn't like the Dean's sermons, and borded themselves up in the transept. Who knows?
Amandajm (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cathedral plan

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)

Yes that might be better, but I probably need to see it done before I am sure (sorry). If it makes it clearer, well and good. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

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)

Hello Amanda - fancy seeing you here. Actually the nave is rather mixed - more specifically the aisles but the nave too. The north side was built first and the south followed some 200 years later I think in a stylistic copy, but there's also fragments of the original Romanesque Norman on the north side - and I have a feeling that the crossing columns were encased at later dates. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have returned my loaned copy of Richards so cannot check the context. But from memory, Richards was commenting on the cathedral as a whole rather than just the nave. Perhaps I placed the sentence in a non-optimum context. Applied to the whole cathedral, the comment rings true - and after all, Richards' book on Cheshire churches is (was) a standard text (that is not to say that on occasions he would have had his own point of view - he did). I will try to have another look at Richards and check.
Also regarding the nave, I quote from Pevsner p. 15 ...the nave S side about 1360. The N side was only dealt with about 1490, yet as a copy of the Late Dec work of the S side - sign of a remarkable and very English conservatism. On p. 141 Pevsner points out that although the two sides are at first sight identical, there are subtle differences between the details of the arcades. Thanks Amandajm for the good work you are doing. I think it may be difficult to get answers to the queries about St Oswald's. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Re Richards comment, I think that the comment almost certainly pertained to the building as a whole. It is the consistency of the nnave that strikes one, not the other way around. This is regardless of differing details and the odd bit of Norman. In fact,, if one excludes the bits that one does not see from the centre of the west end of the nave, (the N. transept etc) then evenn the earlier choir is very harmonious with the later work. Having seen and photgraphed this building, I am surprised that Richards made such a comment. Given that we are talking about an English building. What would he say about Ely, I wonder? Aaargh! It's past Cinderella time in the big land downunder! I will get back to this, but maybe not tomorrow. I hope I haven't left too much of a mess!
Plan, I would like to sort the architecture from the fittings and memorials, then group them, by location, as they are now, but without the architecture mixed up in it. .... The south transept contains ya tomb, yo memorial, ye screen and yip window. Or do we do the stained glass under a seperate heading... maybe? Can someone please check my speeling and the dreaded dubbby-dupps? Amandajm (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Good Grief, Peter I. Vardy! Did you only find 3 typos? Amandajm (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Amanda, will try harder next time. Incidentally I don't know which browser you use but Firefox has an optional add-on of a dictionary; this is useful to me because it puts a red line under anything not in the dictionary (it's American but you can add your own stuff to it) - this would draw your attention to typos and "dubby-dupps". On the subject of St Oswald's, I found this and this with some references to the disputes between St Oswald's and the cathedral, but am not sure how useful this is to the article and how it illuminates the relationship between this parish church and the cathedral. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
My sons keep trying to get me to use firefox! One solution that I have is to edit in word, and then paste. As for St Oswald's, it seems as if they were already there during the reign of Edward. It would be very interesting to know how the South transept was laid out as a church. I wonder if there are any signs. Probably not, because of the extensive restoration!
On the score of Richards, it is entertaining just how dreadfully opinionated some of the writers were. Alec Clifton-Taylor is a very entertaining read, but he has pet hates- he detested the Victorians and everything that they did. He rejoiced when the choir screen at Salisbury was pulled out, and urged for the one at Worcester to go, as well. He loathed 19th century glass and could find a choice rannge of adjectives to describe it. John Harvey is another matter, First and foremost, he was an historian.
Something that I find amazing, and even distressing is that in the 60s and 70s there was on one hand a great mmove to "restore" churches by ripping out Victorian fittings, without regard for the fact that the old fittings that they replaced had usually been burnt or otherwise destroyed. And while this was happening, there was an equally strong movement to decorate churches with Modern glass and fittings. The difference being that while the Victorians didn't always get it right, they did strive to make things harmonious. Designers in the 2nd half of the 20 century often had no such consideration. The dark blue modern windows across the eastern end of Salisbury, a cathedral with hardly a pane of blue glass, but everything green, white, brown and red. YuK! It was an act of achitectural vandalism almost as bad as the Blue's Point Tower. Amandajm (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

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)

I have tried to include all the info. Please let me know if I have made glaring errors or admissions! Amandajm (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I take the point about "dated" - my laziness I suppose. Something I don't understand; there is a heading "Stained glass" and then the glass is discussed all over the place. Does it merit a separate sub-section? If so, why not include all the stained glass within it? I expect the communion plate is kept in a safe. It was not originally, as suggested, discussed under "Lady Chapel", but rather as a separate paragraph under "Cathedral".
If this is to go towards FA, from my own bitter experiences in the process, I suspect all sorts of criticisms as it stands today. Here are some examples. Paragraphs too short. No inline citations at the end of every paragraph. Inconsistences in referencing; particularly in that page numbers are not given for the references in Clifton-Taylor, Tatton-Brown and Cook, and Harvey, while page numbers are given for Pevsner, Starkey, Sheehan and Richards. Any chance of the page numbers being included in the "Notes" and the books being added to the Bibliography? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I share that concern Peter. As it stands, great though it is, it would get a hammering at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've started work on it, but fatigue has won for today. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Good work Peter!
  • About the changes- A great deal of info has come from the English Heritage Monuments Record. This is a highly formulated description which moves around the building directionally and makes bald statements that are factual definitions, not architectural or artistic analyses. The formula does not link architecture to architecture, or relate to function or art form. And it isn't a very effective tourist guide. But it does provide a lot of precise information, though not in a very accessible oor readble form.
I have improved on that by firstly dealing with the building as a work of architecture, and taking it historically, rather than the other option of "tourist guide", "Entry by the south west porch, built in 1066 and with a fan vault by Sir GGS in 1866...proceeding to the south aisle...."
In its present form the article deals with the architecture by historical period, and then the description moves on to the details, commencing with a brief overview of the two most singular features.
There is then a paragraph which attempts to give a brief overview of the range of glass to be found, to indicate whether it is Medieval, Renaissance, Victorian or Modern. If there are any intact Medieval or Renaissance windows, they need to be mentioned among the important features, not just described at their location.
The description thenn looks at areas of the building and describes the features of each, inclluding the individual windows. Tombs are grouped with tombs, and windows with windows. In places, this accounts for the short paragraphs in each section.
  • With regards to citations, facts are facts. Those that are not questionable because the evidence is clearly present in the building itself do not require citation. In such a case, the building presents a primary source which is of an indisputable nature. For example, the fact that there is a piscina in the south transept is hardly questionable and doesn't need a citation. Neither do the facts that the nave has a stellar vault, that the windows have drip mouldings, and that there is a triforium in the choir.
The sorts of things that do need citation are those facts and claims that someone might query or challenge, for example the fact that the vaults (with the exception of that in the Lady Chapel) are wood and not stone, the claim that the consistory court is "unique" and the POV that the choirstalls are among the finest in the country. Dates, measurements and the authorship of individual works such as stained glass windows need citations for their sources. However, I am not prepared to attempt to cite every indisputable fact.
  • Unfortunately, although I (and many others) love Chester Cathedral and think it is beautiful and interesting, the leading historians of Medieval architecture largely ignore it, because it has been so extensively restored. Clifton-Taylor provides only a small amount of valuable information, but with one fantastic quote, re the stalls. In the case of ACT and JH, providing page numbers is not a problem as much of the info comes from a single page in both cases. Will fix.
  • My POV.
  1. The tracery of the south transept window is exquisite. I presume that the design (though probably not much of the stonework) is original. Is there an author we can quote on this? The glass also suits the window very well. It must look glorious around Easter time.
  2. The tracery of the east window is contemporary with that of Ripon, and very similar in style, being one step forward from the tracery in the chapter houses of York and Southwell, and all much more inventive than that of the chapter house at Salisbury by Richard Mason, who had been on the job for 20 years by that time. Any comment? Amandajm (talk) 01:18, 21 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)

[edit] Reference

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)