Talk:St Mary-le-Bow

Recording?

It would be nice if there was a link to a recording of the bells.

Possible confusion

I'm sure the church has often been known as 'Bow Church', but this should not be confused with 'Bow Church' light railway station in Bow, East London. --Cedders^tk 12:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Londoners tend to define landmarks etc by their transport links, so London Transport (as was) tried hard to get these things right. There is no confusion about Bow Church: For at least eighty years the number 8 'bus has left Victoria Station with Bow Church written on the front.[1] Nobody is surprised when it passes St Mary-le-Bow in Cheapside and continues for another twenty-five minutes to Bow Church, in Bow. Similarly, there was no possibilty for confusion when Bow Church station was named in 1987. Old Moonraker 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful if someone could add an entry for St Mary's Church, Bow Road, Bow (otherwise known as Bow Church) to Wikipedia, as it has no listing at present. Here's a link with some info on the church: www.eolfhs.org.uk/parish/bow.htm

82.153.198.125 (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)J Rackowe

Linkrot - replacing the image for the comment above with New Routemaster heading for Bow Church. [2]--217.155.32.221 (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Wedding cake

I have heard that this church has inspired the shape of the wedding cake. any comments? (see [3])Deror 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The external link you supply refers to St Bride's Church, not St Mary-le-Bow. This WP article says the architectural style employed was named after the cake, and not the other way around. I have added a "fact" request to the sentence you added to the article. However, there are a couple of blogs which do make this claim. --Old Moonraker 14:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's come up with anything, and now an editor has deleted it. Old Moonraker 15:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tomb of Godfery Denis Smith

"Godfery Smith" supposedly died in 1904: the citation provided is in a work dealing with the period 1840—1870. If I'm missing something please let me know (a page number would be useful) but meanwhile the addition is reverted.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Link to one, possibly two colonial Boston churches

"Old South Meeting's" (Third Church, Boston II, 1729) tower is designed after that of St. Mary-le-Bow, and in working on early church architecture in the area overall, I've just noticed that a church long since replaced, the First Church in Charlestown II (1719) also has a lantern similar to it. I haven't worked as specficially yet on other possibilities in the South or Middle colonies, but I suspect they may exist. There are similar citations possible for at least one other Boston church I know of, but it has other complications so I'm holding off on that for a bit. Any thoughts?Dellaroux (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Do the bells ring?

The article says the bells were cast in 1956 and were rung one time in 1961. Does this mean they are not being rung? If so why not? Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the "only" in this context just indicates that it wasn't until 1961 that they rang again. Ever since, they have been ringing just as they are supposed to. --31.17.188.18 (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Bell weight confusion

I read the weights but, it does not give what each number actually means.

Two examples 5-3-21 5-3-10

Maybe someone can comment and tell me what these measurements represent. I thought hundredweight, pounds and ounces but, there is only sixteen ounces in a pound so, it can not be that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.234.34 (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm still looking for a reference for the current peal, but when the previous set was discussed the weights were given as hundredweights, quarters and pounds, thus in your first example: 5cwt 3qr 21lb. See "Bells and bell ringing" in volume 12 (1834) of The Musical World, page 23. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

More in Ring of bells#Bell weights, but WP itself can't be used as a source.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

All fixed; thanks for bringing this up!--217.155.32.221 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Bow Bells mileposts

There seems to be a certain number of circular references on the internet relating to the Bow Bells series of mileposts which run down the old turnpike roads A22 London to Eastbourne and A26 Lewes to Uckfield. Sussex archaeological society produced a survey report of Sussex milestones in 1972/1973 edition of their Sussex Industrial History publication which describes the milestones as having 5 bells, the fifth bell not being very clear as they decrease in size from the top J R Spigot (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Laurence King

Unfortunately, we don’t appear currently to have an article on this chap, [4], so I’ve removed the Bluelink and the tag. KJP1 (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:St Mary-le-Bow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 15:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy to review the article.

Review comments

Lead section / infobox

St Mary-le-Bow
Country	England
Denomination	Church of England
History
Dedication	Mary, Mother of Jesus
Architecture
Architect(s)	Sir Christopher Wren Laurence King (to Wren's design)
Specifications
Spire height	221 feet 9 inches (67.6 m)
Administration
Province	Canterbury
Diocese	London
Deanery	The City
Benefice	St Mary-le-Bow

• Unlink Second World War, as this article doesn’t “help someone understand the article you are linking from” (MOS:OL).
• The infobox is unusually extended because of the choice of image and the amount of information in it. I would make the infobox less dominant, as with this (an FA). See the infobox on the right for my idea of what would work better (the map will appear when the infobox is put in the article).
• There are eight citations in the lead which imo are not needed, as none of the information is controversial (see MOS:LEADCITE).
• Today, anyone born within earshot of the bells is considered to be a true Londoner, or Cockney. - I think it should be mentioned that this is now not the case, as the original bells were lost in the air raid that destroyed much of the building, and children are rarely born in what is now a non-residential area.
• I may add more comments about the lead after reviewing the rest of the article.

More comments to follow. Please indicate where you have dealt with an issue, I will then cross out text where it looks sorted, or add a small red cross (N) if I can see the issue still needs to be looked at. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Have had a go at implementing these on the lead section + infobox JRennocks (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

1.1 Foundation

• Link archaeological; Saxon building (Anglo-Saxon architecture); Cheapside; Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury; St Mary; undercroft.
• See WP:CITETRIM for the tendency in this article to be cited excessively. One or two citations are fine when citing most text. More than this is usually considered excessive, and these should be reduced in number.
• the early church here needs copy editing (to ‘St Mary-le-Bow').
• Sancta Maria de Arcubus – the first letter is not in capitals. Use Sancta Maria de Arcubus for this text.
• St Mary of the Arches – the citation needs to be outside the brackets.
• Bow being an old name – bow should be in italics and not capitalized (see MOS:WAW).

More comments to follow. AM

5 References

Please check you have read and understood Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which discusses a key aspect of a GA, reliability. The following references are of concern to me because they lack reliability. Many are used in multiple citations, and removing these won't be a problem, but with others you will need to look for alternative sources.

• Ref 1 (The Worshipful Company of Parish Clerks) is not a reliable source to use, as it is self-published
• Ref 2 (St Mary-le-Bow Church) provides information about a book—this self-published website is not a reliable source and this page is a commercial one.
• Ref 4 (The History of London) is self published.
• Ref 5 (English Church Architecture) is self published.
• Ref 6 (David Ross) is self published.
• Refs 7, 11, 19, 24 and 37 (https://www.stmarylebow.org.uk/) come from a website that is self-published.
• Ref 17 (Emporis) looks unreliable.
• Refs 21 (Lavender Audio) and 25 (Tickell) do not cite their information and cannot be said to be reliable sources.
• Ref 27 (“Rings of Twelve encyclopedia”) is not a reliable source.

1.2 11th and 12th centuries

• Link rafter; lanterns (presumably Roof lantern).
• only their tips remained visible - Ref 4 (The History of London, not a source I would use) gives a different date and description of what happened to the rafters, e.g. it doesn’t refer to ‘tips’.
• Integers >9 are inconsistently formatted, being in both numerals and in words, I would make them numerals (e.g. hundred → 100) throughout.
• Ref 9 (Keane et al) doesn’t work.

1.3 Late medieval period

• It became home to the Court of Arches, to which the church gave its name - see here for what seems to be a fuller explanation for the church's unusual name.
• The second paragraph has a missing citation.
• A similar design was constructed on the tower of St Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh - I’m unclear why this is mentioned.

1.3.1 Great Fire of London

• to the southeast - ‘to the southeast of St Mary-le-Bow’,
• The church was nearly completely destroyed - ‘The church was nearly completely destroyed during the Great Fire of London’. Everything before this is not needed. I would put the text with the text of the Wren rebuilding section, retitling it as ‘Destruction during the Great Fire of London (1666)’.

1.4 Wren rebuilding

• Link and introduce Christopher Wren.
• Link mason (presumably Stonemasonry; crypt.
• Unlink Rome (MOS:OL).
• finally completed in 1680 – ‘being finally completed in 1680’ sounds better imo.
• became such a landmark that it became – improve the prose by changing to ‘became such a landmark that it was’.
• the original – this doesn’t make sense within the sentence.

1.5 18th - 20th centuries

• Link Diocese of London; vestry.
• Unlink New York (MOS:OL).

1.5.1 Second World War

• This section is not well written. It needs to copy edited to improve the prose, remove contradictions, and edit out redundant text.
• Link Blitz.
• A gallery of images such as the one that follows the text of this section is usually to be avoided (see WP:IG). The images should be moved to where they illustrate the relevant text in the article, or not used. They can be found easily enough in Wikicommons as the article is correctly linked to them.

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

2.1 Plan

• Link chancel; nave; aisle.
• The note requires a citation.
• In the caption I would give the name of the book the image of the plan comes from, and add the date.

2.2 Exterior

• Move the link for spire to where it first occurs (Wren rebuilding).
• Check for any examples where the information is duplicated (e.g. the information given about the building materials), and edit these.
• imposing; substantial are subjective descriptions, and should be avoided.
• is the parapet. The parapet – needs to be amended to improve the prose.
• These twelve columns – ‘These’ (to avoid unnecessary repetition).
• The above comment about the gallery of images applies here as well.

2.3 Interior

• Introduce John Hayward.
• Hayward's dates should be removed, as their appearance here is inconsistent with the rest of the article.
• Only three bays – why only?
• I would add a comma after blue and white.
• They, along with the other furniture, vestments, etc., is too vague.
• All three of the - ‘The three’.
• I would omit The crypt is now in use as the "Cafe Below" as being irrelevant to the subject of the interior architecture, and information that is likely to become dated.
• The above comment about the gallery of images applies here as well.

3.1 Organ

• Link pedalboard (Pedal keyboard); sanctuary (Sanctuary#Sanctuary_as_area_around_the_altar).
• The caption is missing a full stop.
• Add commas after dates to 1802; pre-war condition.
• additional; Following the restoration of the church from 1956 are redundant.
• £255 needs to be converted to a modern value.
• Introduce Thomas Trotter.
• The second paragraph needs to be copy edited to improve the English.
• by many – who are we talking about here? The members of the church? Experts? Musicians?
• which reuses the old case is redundant.
• plus is imo poor English.
• According to MOS:SPELL09, numbers from 1 to 9 are written as words.

3.2 Bells

• There are 65 citations in this section, some of which I have identified as being unreliable, so I cannot verify the text. I will return to this section when the multiple citations issue is addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

3.3 History

• This section title seems to be redundant.

More comments to follow. AM

Further comments

• 3.3.1 Early bells - Link peal; Common Council (presumably Court of Common Council). Link and introduce Richard Whittington.
• 3.3.2 18th and 19th centuries - Court of Arches is a duplicate link and needs to be unlinked.
• 3.3.3 Selfridge's ring - Province of Canterbury is a duplicate link and needs to be unlinked. Link ecclesiastical court; incendiary bomb (Incendiary device. There is no link for grillage, but I think a brief explanation is required.
• 3.3.5 Specification - I would argue that the table listing each bell should not be included, as only the most recent bells are listed in it,
• 3.3.6 In popular culture - Hackney Marshes is a duplicate link and needs to be unlinked. Link City of London.
• 6 Further reading - Why is Colvin listed here?

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 12 January to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. There may be other comments made about the Bells section once you have addressed the comments listed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Within earshot

Amitchell125's comment above:

Today, anyone born within earshot of the bells is considered to be a true Londoner, or Cockney. - I think it should be mentioned that this is now not the case, as the original bells were lost in the air raid that destroyed much of the building, and children are rarely born in what is now a non-residential area.

However, "Anyone who meets condition X is considered to be Y" doesn't entail "Anyone who doesn't meet condition X is not considered to be Y".

The sentence cites two sources. This one: "The most famous tradition linked to St Mary-le-Bow is that only someone born within the sound of Bow bells can be considered a true Cockney." Note the "only", which makes it much stronger; but the description of the notion as a mere "tradition", which weakens it. This source: "to be born within the sound of Bow bells was the sign of a true Londoner or Cockney": "was", but when within "hundreds of years"?

If the originality of the bells is an issue, the original bells were lost centuries before the second world war.

How about simply directing readers interested in the Cockney/Bow relationship to Cockney#Bow_Bells'_audible_range? The treatment there seems much better. -- Hoary (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Britain Express

The website tells us at the foot of each page:

"Britain Express is a labour of love by David Ross, an avid historian, photographer, and 'Britain-ophile'. Connect with us on Facebook."

(More details here.) But can it really be classed as an RS? -- Hoary (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)