Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leicester Abbey/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Leicester Abbey

[edit]

Leicester Abbey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Rushton2010 (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I first stumbled on the article about Leicester Abbey out of casual interest, knowing nothing about the abbey. Having discovered the article to be a copyright infringement I worked to get it cleared up. The subject then sparked my interest and I have enlarged the article from the reading and research I have done on the subject.

It was the first article I have ever nominated for GA status, and I have been courteously and gently guided through that process. FA seems to be the next stage of improving the article and so that is why I'm nominating it. I'm hoping for the same gentle guiding hand and polite courtesy I received during the GA. Thank you Rushton2010 (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The article has a wrath of rawlinks and heavily relies on reference 2. The referencing is often repeated needlessly such as: "...increasing their lands and endowments with acquisitions such as the manors of Ingarsby and Kirkby Mallory.[2] Clowne is described as having "friendly relations" with King Edward III, and used this to gain further privileges for the abbey, including being exempted from having to send representatives to Parliament.[2] However, by the late 14th century, the abbey had entered a difficult period, and its income began to fall.[2] and "Despite Abbot Sadyngton's apparent financial corruption, the abbey appeared to be financially stable: the abbey's monastic buildings had recently been extensively rebuilt and the Abbey had a substantial annual income of £1180.[2] Perhaps because of the large income the Abbot was sustaining, Bishop Alnwick appears to have not taken strong measures against the Abbot's indiscretions.[2] He ordered that the number of canons should be increased to 30 and the number of boys in the almonry increased to 16.[2] The Bishop also ordered proper accounts to be kept and forbade the abbot from granting favours without the permission of both the Bishop and the Canons.[2] The whole of "The abbey's layout" section relies solely on reference 20 and repeats it 21 times!

I've reduced the the repetitive referencing now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At two paragraphs, I think the lead section is too short for an article that is 56,000 bytes in length and cannot possibly convey the history of a building that is 900 years old. File:Cavendish House and ruins c1906.jpg has no research in terms of trying to find the unknown author. I haven't looked at the prose in its entirety, but from what I have seen it doesn't look too bad. However, I think the article would benefit from a peer review which I should be happy to undertake if desired, but I don't think it is quite ready for FAC yet. -- CassiantoTalk 12:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

  • I have used the standard university format where by anything which is not your own work is referenced. As wikipedia doesn't allow original research that means that basically everything but the very basic linking sentences were referenced; although I can cut it down to just the ends of the paragraphs if you think that wise. That format has also lead to the "raw link" as the standard templates could not cover all of the types of sources used and so had lead to different formats within the reference section which was criticised at GA- hence them being converted to the standard university footnote format.
Yes, you were correct to format it like that. Rawlinks are not good and look untidy. Using square brackets is a much desirable format to use with a title of the site that it comes off of. You could benefit in splitting the refences into two columns by adding a {{Reflist|2}} to the references section.CassiantoTalk 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done that now. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference two is the most complete account of the Abbey's history. I had originally referenced the source documents (for example court rolls and letters, but was told to reference the source I found them in rather than the original source of the information, which meant that one gained a few extra references. I also used Leicester Council's account but their account is far from complete (it doesn't touch on details such as income and property that ref 2 does) but it may not appear as if I have used them as much as their's is spread across 4 or 5 websites.

:No doubt it is, but it suggests an over relience which is never too good. I havent got a problem with the source, I think the problem is the fact you have cited it too many times. You dont need to cite every other sentence. I would (and have done) allow three to four or possibly even five full stops before using it again.CassiantoTalk 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the repetitive referencing now. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The abbey's layout is referenced as such as it is the only reference that I have found that mentions it. It is the same standard layout seen at the majority of other monasteries and so I believe sources do not bother; especially seeing as it is plotted out on the site and anyone with even the smallest knowledge of monasteries will be able to identify the key features of church and cloister.

fine, but you dont need to repeat the same reference after every sentence or every other sentence. I reckon you could cut these down by a third and not worry. Just make sure that each para has a cite at the end. CassiantoTalk 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reduced the repetitive referencing now. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall look at the introduction. I have tried to keep it succinct by briefly covering the key events of the abbey's history and the most notable figures associated with it, without repeating the detail within the article.

The lead section SHOULD contain a information from the body. I wouldn't worry about making it long as that can always be cut down through a copy edit. Being too brief however can cause a non-promotion at FAC. It should be nomore than four paragraphs in length. It should be a summary of the whole article. CassiantoTalk 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've extended the introduction. Please let me know what you think. Thank you --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the photograph, it was suggested to me by the GA reviewer and I was not the one that uploaded it. The only image I created was the simplified plan. With it being a postcard, the person who took the photo or manufactured the card is unlikely to have ever been recorded and no amount of research will discover them. I have quite a number of Victorian and WW1 postcards: none list a photographer or manufacturer and most (frustratingly) don't even tell you where the image is of. I shall email the individual who uploaded the picture, but I wouldn't hold out any hope of an answer.

I dont think that would be enough to survive an FAC. Sure, if you manage to speak with the uploader then you can request he does it. If not, then I would either undertake the research yourself or delete it from the article. If a gauge you correctly, then the GA reviewer in this instance was wrong to assume that as the picture was not upoaded by you then the research was not needed to identify the author. Also note, that GAC and FAC are two different process. What might be OK for GAC is not going to be sufficient for FAC. CassiantoTalk 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, the chances of locating the photographer are practically nil. So I've changed it to another wiki-commons image, which is probably the easier option.

Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14th century
  • "Though the abbey was a religious house, it was attacked in 1326 by the Earl of Lancaster's soldiers, who seized property belonging to Hugh le Despenser, 1st Earl of Winchester, that was being kept at the abbey." -- Repetition of "abbey" at the end of the sentence.
  • (tenure: 1345-1378) -- Correct date range dash required, not a hyphen.
  • "to a canon called Henry of Knighton" -- "to canon Henry of Knighton".
  • "It includes..." -- delete pronoun and say "The chronical includes..."
  • "Knighton's chronicle is particularly well regarded for his contemporary account..." -- By who?
  • "His in depth account records the effects of the Black Death on food, grain, wine and cattle prices, on wages and the labour market, and includes detailed death-tolls for all of Leicester's parishes, revealing that one-third of the population of Leicester were killed by the disease. -- A bit long with too many commas which makes for bumpy prose, consider splitting.
15th century
  • "...and directly farmed by the abbey." -- "...and was directly farmed by the abbey.
  • "Repyngdon's successor as Abbot was granted a Royal Licence permitting him to ask the Pope for the Abbey to be removed from the Bishop of Lincoln's jurisdiction, as the abbot feared Repyngdon would interfere with his former abbey, which lay within that Diocese." -- "Repyngdon's successor [who?] was granted a Royal Licence permitting him to ask the Pope to remove the Abbey from the Bishop of Lincoln's jurisdiction, as the abbot feared Repyngdon would interfere with his former abbey, which lay within that Diocese."
  • (1420-42) -- date range dash please.
  • 30-40 -- 30 to 40, or if you want to stick with a dash, then a suitable one needs to be placed.
  • We don't need to keep calling him "Abbot Sadyngton", just Sadyngton should do.
16th century
  • "In 1518 the abbey received another visit, this time from William Atwater, Bishop of Lincoln." -- suggest -- "In 1518 William Atwater, Bishop of Lincoln visited the abbey."
  • "...the boys in the almonry were being improperly educated." -- how?
  • Simple answer: No idea. The source states that in 1440, "The abbot was accused of having admitted unsuitable boys in return for money" and then "As in 1440, complaints were made about the excessive number of hounds kept in the abbey, and about the failure to educate the boys in the almonry properly." So there's no real details about how exactly they were improperly educated. We know that the canons were ill disciplined from elsewhere and other sources, but to suggest that was the reason for the improper education is just theorising and synthesis, as its not specifically stated in the sources. --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Atwater's successor as Bishop of Lincoln" -- We don't need to be reminded of the fact Atwater was Bishop of Lincoln so soon after the first few lines. "Successor" only will do here.
  • "Abbot Pescall was not regularly attending church services, and, when he did, would often bring his jester," -- "Abbot Pescall rarely attended church and, when he did, he would often bring his jester who "disturbed the services with his buffoonery".
  • "... eating at unusual times and in unusual places" -- Times yes, but places! Where were the unusual places?
  • Another thing that the sources do not state. All we have is "He had a burdensome habit of taking his meals apart from the canons, at irregular times and in unusual places." Anywhere away from the canons would be unusual as all usually ate together in the refectory. The abbot has his own private quarters so may have eaten there; but if its "unusual", I'd guess its away from both of those places. Again- its theorising. The sources simply do not say. --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Given the sorry state of affairs..." -- yuk, could you find an alternative?
  • "Thomas Cromwell; leading Bishop Longland to resort to "harassing" the Abbot, by constantly interfering with affairs at the abbey." -- Why the semicolon?
  • "Abbot Pescall finally resigned 5 years later" redundent "finally".
  • "Pescall frequently wrote to Thomas Cromwell complaining about affairs at the abbey, even complaining that £13 of his..." -- repetition of "complaining".
  • " "Father abbott, I ame come hether to leave my bones among you". -- why the Itals?
  • "By the time Pescall was removed, the Abbey's financial position was poor: Despite being the richest abbey in Leicestershire (with an income of £951 in 1534), the abbey owed a total of £1,000 to debtors." -- as per Jim. Abbey and abbey is still occurring here; also too many "abbeys" are given here. I suggest you use a pronoun for the last mention.
  • "Bourchier was born around 1493 in Oakington, near Cambridge, and educated as a King's Scholar at Eton and at Kings College and St John's College, Cambridge." -- Why do we need to know this? Might I suggest putting this in a footnote?
  • "...Thomas Cromwell.Exact details are unknown... ." -- Make a space between the period and the next word.
  • Please check OVERLINKING to Thomas Cromwell.
  • Inconsistent capitalisation of "pope".
  • Drop the "king" for King Henry on the second mention.

More imminently. -- CassiantoTalk 20:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim mostly the lead for now. Sorry if it's not very gentle Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Massive overlinking, Leicester, for example is linked five times, including twice in the lead. I suggest you run the duplicate link detector tool
  • Those bare urls in the refs look awful. If you aren't prepared to use templates at least roll them into the title [title url]
  • Personally, I don't link sites without free full access, I just give the jstor/doi number for journals, nothing for books
Another GA thing was to mark those websites requiring a subscription, as such. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • you don't need access dates for publications that have a real existence like the Catholic Encyclopaedia
  • what makes ref 16 a reliable source, the typos don't inspire confidence?
Semper-Eadem was an inheritance of the original page - it was from this webpage the copy and paste copyright infringement took place. Looking at it, the 3 times it is referenced it is only as additional references so it can be easily removed if necessary.Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The books should have a publisher and page numbers, even if you have linked to on-line versions
I have added the page number for the Platt book. As for the online books such as the Catholic encyclopedia: I have only used the online version and there are no page numbers listed. All books have their publisher listed. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have two pdf references, clearly chapters from books or periodicals, where the book title, publisher and page numbers are all missing (the urls indicate volumes) Conversely, you don't need an access date for these, they are real books not changeable websites. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to find where they were taken from and have added the information. I have also removed the dates from them and a couple of others that were superfluous. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leicester is a city, not a town (at least two occurrences)
It only became a city in 1919. For the period of time we are looking at, Leicester would pass in modern terms as a large village. To refer to it as a city would not only be incorrect but give false illusions of size. And so I have referred to it with the status it had at the time we were looking at. I have added a little note as such though. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one in the lead has been changed to City however --Rushton2010 (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • most predominantly — "most" is redundant
I've removed the extra "most". Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 32 acres (13 ha) — Putting imperial units first looks a bit American these days, even the UK is primarily metric now
I would argue for the continuation of acres. It is purely personal preference on both ends anyway but I find, especially with land people are far more understanding of the term acre than of are, hectare, square meters and such. It also makes for easier conversion, as monastic land tends to be measured in Vigrates, Oxgangs and Carucates which are all multiples of acres. But yes, as I say, its personal preference on both sides. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • layout way plotted out — obvious typo which I didn't correct because it read clunkily anyway
I've corrected Way to Was, and slightly reworked the sentence. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the referencing comment above, obviously it's up to you whether you use templates, but the only restriction if you do so is that you don't mix templates from different families (Cite and Citation styles). All my FAs are written entirely with citeweb/citejournal/citebook. The advantage is that you largely avoid the problems you are still having with the refs. You seem to have gone to the other extreme now, blue-linking everything, not just the title. It's better than rawlinks, but non-standard still Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked it now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's obligatory to give a publisher for web refs. Moving the council from author to publisher fixes most, University of Leicester for 19 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected those now, and the added the missing few two for the pdfs. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead looks better
Thank you. :) --Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Abbey's layout— shouldn't have title in heading, layout will do, it's unlikely to be for anywhere else.
I've changed it. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions There are a couple of strange capitalisations in the captions, Grade 1-listed should be hyphenated, second part of lead caption seems superfluous here, don't think you need to say "portrait of", it's unlikely to be a photo!
I've removed the second part of the caption and the "portrait". I disagree that Grade 1 Listed should be hyphenated though: I've not seen it hyphenated anywhere on wikipedia, including on Norton Priory which has been granted FA status. The official registers and English Heritage do not hyphenate either. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abbot-ship—why not uncapitalised and unhyphenated abbotship?
It was a victim of google chrome's spellcheck. Changed it now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • whist increasing their lands and endowments —this refers to the other houses as written,is that right?
Changed it now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decameron, Leicester Chronicle—italics needed
Done that. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Florence, Italy is very American, especially as it's just a redirect to Florence
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this one. Calling it "very American" as a criticism? -rather odd and confusing. But on a more practical level with regards to the link, with Decameron not being well known outside of those who have studied history people aren't going to know off hand that it about Florence. With no page specifically about the black death in Florence, I linked it to main city page. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point I'm making is that giving the state/country as well as the city name is US style. You haven't put Cambridge, England or Leicester, England, so why use this style for Florence? It's globally known, more so than Leicester, and certainly not Hicksville, Arizona. Fine to put Paris, France if you are writing in AE on an American topic, jars in BE. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed this now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • deaths of cannons— went with a bang presumably?
Changed now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fearing Repyngdon... — convoluted sentence needs splitting
I've reworded that sentence. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two cannons were also accused
Changed now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • '' as-well, in-order  ?????
Corrected. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • locate the location — yuk
Corrected. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text actually reads pretty well, and the lead is better. I'm still not happy with the ref style, have a look at Priyanka Chopra, another current FAC, to see what I meant
I've reworked it now. Thanks--Rushton2010 (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

  • I shall take a look at the links; do you have a link for that tool?.
posted on your talk Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I've removed the extra links now. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When doing the GA one of the comments was that the reference templates had led to references in different styles that do not match. So to ensure they all match as per GA rules, they were converted to the standard University footnote format. I shall look to see about putting in the title url things though.

Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through in more detail now, these are my edits plus your intervening removal of uncited text. They are mainly typos and dubious capitalisation (may be worth checking through, there have been quite a few so far) but I've also removed forced image sizes, which should generally be avoided because they override user settings. Note that ranges should be endashed, not hyphenated — I've fixed for pages, haven't checked if there are others. We have plenty of time, so I'll carry on copyediting and only return here if there is a need to discuss. or when I've finished. I'd like to see Cassianto's comments when they arrive too. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim, ill hang about until your finished as it may become a bit busy for the poor nominator and I wouldn't want to intrude on your review. No grief, ill get on with something else in the meantime. -- CassiantoTalk 11:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm pretty busy for the next three days in RL, so it would suit me if you want to take over for the time being Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. I will do my best though. -- CassiantoTalk 19:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you shouldn't strike comments yourself, let the reviewer decide if the point has been addressed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I was trying to make it easier to see what had and hadn't been done. Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "These former religious establishments were frequently developed into Stately homes by their new aristocratic owners; notable examples of this include Calke Abbey, Longleat House, Syon House Welbeck Abbey and Woburn Abbey." - source?
  • "BBC History at"? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "at" was the unwelcome remainder of a previous reference style -so has been removed
And I've added both general references and references for the specific manor houses.
Many Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Leicester_Abbey/archive1&oldid=1079645339"