Talk:St George's Church, Trotton

St George's Church, Trotton has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 4, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 29, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1904 the whitewash was removed from the west wall of St. George's church, Trotton leading to the discovery of an unprecedented 600-year-old wall painting?

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pre-GAN comments

I note this article is awaiting review as a GAN, so while waiting for a reviewer, may I make some suggestions which may help to make some improvements pre-review.

Lead. This should be a summary of the whole article and it should not really contain any material not in the main body of the article. Which leads me to:
Structure. The main importance of the article is the architecture of the church, and this deserves a (major) section of its own. How about a first section of "History" or "Location and history"? I guess there is more history about this ancient church than is currently in the article. Then the section on "Architecture" with subsections on "Structure", describing its exterior and building materials, "Fittings and furniture", about the interior and the items of interest, for example the font, then "Wall paintings" and finally "Tombs". Then a final section about "Present day" or some such subheading, incorporating the information currently in the lead about services, etc.

If some of these were to be acted on, I feel it might save some time at GAN. Also, as the main interest in the article is the architecture and paintings, would it not be better to be placed in the "Art and architecture" section of GAN rather than "Religion" - there's very little religion in the article. Whatever the decisions made, best of luck with your reviewer at GAN. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ideas - I'll give some thought to them. I wasn't really sure where to categorise it on GAN, so I just picked somewhere. It is a problem with the system on GAN - you have to choose on category and often there isn't one that is obviously the best. --Tango (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I've managed to get three Cheshire churches to GA level through the Arts and architecture section. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:St. George's church, Trotton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin reviewing this article and make straightforward changes as I go (explanations in edit summaries). Please revert any changes I make where I inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The church shares a rector with the parish of Rogate with Terwick. - two 'with's in the one sentence look awkward.

"Rogate with Terwick" is the official name of the parish, so I'm not sure how to reword it. Would it help to put the parish name in italics, or something? --Tango (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps something along these lines: "St George's rector also oversees the parish of Rogate with Terwick." • Astynax ^talk 18:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that the location of the tomb of Margaret de Camois in the nave, rather than the chancel as would be expected for the family of the lord of the manor (which her surname suggests she was), may indicate that the church was built on the site of an earlier, smaller, church and the tomb was in the chancel of that church. - just sort of launches into this. Needs a bit of an introduction or rejig, along the lines of 'there is a tomb of...at x' and then a discussion about it.

How's that? --Tango (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also any background info on Margaret de Camois would be good too.~~

I don't think any exists. Her name indicates a connection to the lord of the manor (as mentioned), but that is pretty much all we know. I think I came across some guesswork about who she might have been in one of the sources, however I think it was a book I got from a local library, which I took back. --Tango (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just realise what you've done with the tombs section. I'd be inclined to slot the tombs bit in hte description above discussion for flow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it might make sense to rearrange that a bit. I'll look into it. --Tango (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any information on the churchyard outside? Garden? (looks nice :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a graveyard, not much special about it. There is a very old yew tree there, but I only know it is very old due to oral history, I don't have anything citable (although I'll have a look for something). --Tango (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The church is also used once a month by the British Orthodox Church. - neads to be mentioned in body of text. Sounds like an unusual practice. Be good to have how long it's been going on for and is there any controversy about it (almost more notable if there isn't really). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that unusual. I've never heard of any controversy and I would be very surprised if there were any. Different religions/denominations get along really well in the UK. I don't have any sources that mention it other than the one I've cited and that doesn't say anything more than what I've included. --Tango (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, one would combine the above sentence and embellishment with the segment The church shares a rector with the parish of Rogate with Terwick. Most services are held at St. Bartholomew's church in Rogate, with just two services a month held in Trotton - which could be expanded - i.e. history of worship/parish/status etc. All important for a place of worship. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all these suggestions. I will get to them in time, but right now I'm really busy. I'm Head of Fundraising for Wikimedia UK, so all my spare time is being spent on the current fundraiser. --Tango (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. I often let these slide for a little while so when you can...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A month later, ideally some progress should start being made. Never fun to have a GAN just sitting around, and now that it's the oldest one left hopefully it'll be wrapped up on both sides soon. Wizardman 06:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tango, if you can get to a library or source some material in the next few days, then we can wrap this up, if not, I will wind it up as not-listed but will be happy to be pinged and review once some material to fill it surfaces. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion required - ultimately I think the article is okay, but I wonder whether it satisfies comprehensiveness - just more details about the description of the place (architecture, garden, cemetery) or whether what is there already qualifies (as it is only a little church). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have some sources w/ info about this church. As I have done quite a lot of work on Sussex church articles, I'll pick this one up and try to help as much as I can, time permitting, in the next 2–3 days. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll see if there is anything more in the sources I still have available tomorrow if I get a chance. --20:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, it shouldn't need much at all - just a proverbial hair's breadth off being nicely comprehensive. Happy to to keep the door open. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After Hassocks' nice expansion, I'd say it's passible now. though if just a bit more is needed I'd poke him to add that little bit, which shouldn't take more than a couple days. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The additions looks great - thanks! I don't think I can add anything more at this stage. I have one question, though - what is the source for the address? As a local, I've never heard that road called "Petersfield Road" - it's just known as "the A272 (between Petersfield and Midhurst)". --Tango (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, intruding above Casliber's comment) It's given in the English Heritage "Images of England" listing info, although I suspect it's an old-fashioned usage and can be removed if preferred (just checking my West Sussex Street Atlas, I see that no name is given other than A272). I'll keep this on my Watch list and add more when I can, hopefully. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, nicely buffed to just get it to that stage of comprehensiveness. Looks good now :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]