Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 17:47, 13 January 2009 [1].

Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire[edit]

This is a complete list of the listed buildings in the urban area of Runcorn, divided into the grades of listing. Grade II* is further divided geographically as it is rather long. The coordinates take you to the individual building. Each building has the reference to its entry in the Images of England website or, where there is not one, to the relevant document on the local authority's website. Where there is significant historical information, references are made to the appropriate sources. All the photographs were taken by me and all are in the public domain. The list has not been submitted for formal peer review but I have requested comments from local editors who are experienced in this field. Their comments are on the talk page. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by doncram Quick comments:
  • Nice list!
  • The first sentence ("In the United Kingdom, the term listed building refers to a building or other structure officially designated as being of special architectural, historical or cultural significance.") should be about the buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire, rather than providing a general definition not specific to this article. Grab the reader with a topic sentence about what is special about this specific list.
  • In the tables, I would prefer that the interesting photos be provided further to the left, perhaps in the second column, not at the very right, after the references column, which should probably be included last. See, for comparison, U.S. FL candidate article, List of NHLs in AL, which puts photos in 2nd column i think.
  • Organization by listing status or geography? I am not sure that listing by Class A/B/C or 1/2/3 is superior to organizing by town / geographic location.
  • Question: what is the model Listed buildings article that this nomination should be compared to? Sorry, i am not familiar with what is the standard for listed buildings Featured Lists.

Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thanks for the comments. I will re-order the lead as you suggest. I also agree that the photos look better in column 2, and I will move them.

In respect of the last two points, the only FLs of listed buildings are Grade I listed buildings in Bristol and Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester. These provide some similarities, but also major differences (there is no really acceptable model for comparison). The differences are: (1) they list only one grade; (2) they cover areas much larger than Runcorn. Runcorn is a small town with a population of <70,000. Bristol is a city with a population of 0.5 million; Greater Manchester is a metropolitan area with a population of 2.5 million. The population of even the smallest region in Greater Manchester is much greater than that of Runcorn. The idea of the different grades is to show the differing importance of the buildings; which is why I have split the list into grades rather than into geographical areas. In such a small town, splitting it primarily into geographical areas makes no real sense; I have split Grade II (the lowest and therefore the least important) into areas to make the list more managable/less daunting for the reader. I hope you agree that this makes sense. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco/SRX

Comments

Lead
  • Until the Industrial Revolution Runcorn consisted of two small communities, one a hamlet by the river and the other in a more elevated situation to the south known as Higher Runcorn (the communities were also known as Runcorn Inferior and Runcorn Superior). - comma after Revolution" and remove one before a hamlet
  • To the west of Runcorn was the separate village of Halton which contained a castle and a court. - comma before which
  • As the population grew in the 19th century the two Runcorn communities joined, and extended to the south to include the villages of Weston and Weston Point. - comma before the two and remove the comma before and
  • In the 1960s and 1970s a new town was built to the east of Runcorn. - how about Between the 1960s and 1970s, an new town was built to the east of Runcorn.
  • The new town grew to incorporate Halton and, further to the east, the village of Norton. - the comma should be before the and
  • Grade II* - what does the * mean?
  • Apart from the ancient structures in Grade I, on the whole the buildings can be divided by date into two groups, those built before the Industrial Revolution, and those built during or after it. - how about Besides the ancient structures in Grade I, the building can be divided by date into two groups; these included structures built before and after the Industrial Revolution.
  • The stone is almost invariably red sandstone which was obtained from local quarries in the Runcorn, Weston, and Halton areas. - comma before which--SRX 00:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

  • Commas amended as recommended.
  • In the 1960s... Arguing pedantically, one could say that BETWEEN the 1960s and the 1970s was midnight on 31 December 1969. The new town was built in the late 1960s and through most of the 1970s (I do not have accurate dates). So I think IN makes sense.
  • Grade II*... I thought this was adequately explained in the lead. Grade II* lies between Grade I and Grade II in importance - better than Grade II; not as important as Grade I. That's how English Heritage do it and that's how it has to be in the list.
  • Apart from... The suggested alternative sentence does not make sense (to me).
Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about Besides the ancient structures in Grade I, the building can be divided by date into two groups; these include structures built before and after the Industrial Revolution.--Truco 14:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Not sure. What do others think? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Except for..."? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comments
Tables
  • In about 1800 additional walls were built on its east side, to improve its appearance from Norton Priory. - bad wording, should be During the early 1800s, additional walls.. In addition remove the comma before "to"
  • "About 1800" is careful wording, it could have been before or after, "in the early 1800s" would be inaccurate. Comma added and one removed. Nev1 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Tudor mansion house was built on the site by Richard Brooke and this was replaced by a Georgian house in 1730. - comma before "and"
  • Used a semi-colon instead of a comma and removed the and. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The roof has a cornice and a solid parapet, stone gables and a chimney. - this should be The roof has a cornice, a solid parapet, stone gables, and a chimney.
  • The windows are sash windows. The eaves consist of a cornice with a solid parapet which is pedimented over the centre bay. - comma before "which"
  • The entrance to the court room is approached by a stone staircase and its doorcase is surmounted by the Royal Arms. - comma before "and"
  • This was built as a mansion house, Halton Grange, for Thomas Johnson, a local soap and alkali manufacturer in the style of an Italianate villa with a belvedere tower. - comma after "alkali manufacturer"
  • I don't think so, "a local soap, and alkali manufacturer" just doesn't read right. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said after.--Truco 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In the 19th century it was the home of Thomas Hazlehurst, a soap and alkali maker, and is now used by the adjoining bank and as a solicitors' office. - comma after "century"
  • The original entrance has been filled in and a new entrance provided. - how about ...a new entrance was built?
  • The church has a four-bay nave with aisles, and a chancel at a lower level. - remove the comma
  • Why, that's the kind of situation you've suggested adding commas before. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But in this context, its not needed.--Truco 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The gate piers in the wall fronting the entrance to the Chesshyre Library which consist of squared sandstone blocks with ball finials. - comma before "which"
  • The stone doorcase has Ionic pilasters, a pulvinated frieze and a swanneck pediment with a cartouche in the tympanum. - comma before and
  • Not using a serial comma is not bad practice, it's merely a matter of taste. I've added one. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This house was built in roughcast brick with a slate roof on a stone plinth and it has rusticated quoins. - comma before and
  • Oppose - from these many prose errors, fails WP:WIAFL Cr1 and 3. A peer review could have helped here. If improvements are made, I may support.--Truco 21:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you have any further examples? Nev1 (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, just my responses to a few above.--Truco 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - this list is a first, I believe, hopefully next time a peer review will be advised since many prose problems were found, but for now, it meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


Comments Nice list. I work mainly on US National Register of Historic Places listings, so it's interesting to look at one from elswhere. We've been struggling with featured list issues, and I'm not list expert. I do have just a couple comments.Lvklock (talk)

  • I'm viewing with Internet Explorer, and the Coords column, below the heading, runs over into the descriptions column. The line between columns doesn't line up with the heading, and some description words overlap the line.
  • You have nice coordinate information. It would be nice to have a clickable "Map of all Coordinates" like there is in some of the US articles, such as List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. It's on the right, just above the list heading. I knwo I've read discussions about it not being too hard to do.
  • I believe that we at WP:nrhp have always made sure there's an article for each item on the list before trying to promote the list, even if the article is just a stub. I notice that some of your listings don't have individual articles. I'm really just curious to know if that's OK with the list folks. The articles that you do have seem to all be nice, extensive articles...I'm impressed.

Response

Thanks for your comments. It is interesting to see how different cultures, with different histories, compare.
  • Oh, those different browsers! As you may have guessed, I have been using Mozilla Firefox. I think I can correct it when I move the photographs by making the title of the column "Coordinates" rather than "Coords"; at least it works in my sandbox. I expect there are other (better?) ways of doing it but this seems to work. Incidentally, I recommend Firefox - it's free, easy to use, more secure than Explorer, and it comes with a spell checker as a useful add-on (that's meant to be helpful, not snide).
    • Thanks. I can't change at work, so have just always stuck with IE at home, too. You're not the first to recommend Firefox. The spell checker would indeed come in handy. It's not that I don't know how to spell, just that my brain moves faster than my fingers! Lvklock (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been done - many thanks to doncram! It really brings to light the distribution of the important local buildings. One query - the arrows relate to numbers which are not in the list. I suppose it would be useful to have these numbers in the list BUT I am very reluctant to add yet another column to a list which is already a bit crowded.
    • Doncram is one of those I've heard discussing this at WP:NRHP. I think there's some way to edit the coordinates set to show the names of the sites instead of numbers, but I don't know what that way is. Lvklock (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you need to set name labels for the coordinates sets so that a label like "Norton Priory" appears in the Google map, rather than a default number provided by Google. I just edited a couple of the coordinate sets to add such labels, as in this format

<small>{{coord|53.3424|-2.6796|name=Norton Priory}}</small>

Note the Google map does not update immediately. It can take a few hours, less than 24 hours always in my experience, before the Google system updates the appearance of a map based on a big wikipedia list-article like this one. So the Norton Priory one still shows temporarily as a number, for me, but that will change.
Note i also prefer to put the coords display in the list-article into Small font--I think that is appropriate, as few if any readers are seriously interested in the numeric coordinates, they just want the coord link and/or the Google map link to work. doncram (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not appear as a criterion for FL. I could write short stubs for all the buildings but some of these would be so small as to be of little value, containing not much more than is in the list. I wonder if one of the directors could advise on this please.
    • I'd be interested in this, too. I do write a lot of short stubs, usually either to fill out blue links in a list or as a place to put a picture I've taken. I've heard the argument that having a small stub might stir up interest in someone who might then beef up the article. Unfortunately, that has not been my experience, though I do often get subsequent edits helping with categories and other small fixes. (As noted above, it never hurts to have someone check my stuff for typos!) Lvklock (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report The photographs have been moved to column 2 and the title of column 4 has been expanded. It looks fine in Firefox but IE is still not right. Can anyone help with this? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on locations and organization The organization system doesn't show the locations of the Grade I and Grade II* buildings; locations in terms of 4 towns(?) are given in the organization only for Grade II buildings. It's not obvious to me what towns the Grade I and II* buildings are in; i don't think that info is in this list-article. The supplementary Google map link helps only partway, it does not show Runcorn vs. Halton vs. other jurisdictions. The current organization of the article is: 

# 1 Grade I
# 2 Grade II*
# 3 Grade II
    * 3.1 Runcorn
    * 3.2 Halton
    * 3.3 Weston and Weston Point
    * 3.4 Norton

I think that the town locations and even perhaps street addresses can usefully be included in the tables, in a column. Town or address+town info could be included in what is now the coordinates column, to be renamed "Location" and to include the town followed by coordinates in each cell. Also, it would be possible to use color coding of Grade I vs. Grade II* vs. Grade II buildings, and mix them in the table. You could have just one big sortable table, sortable either by town or by grade type. That would make your table more similar to the U.S. NRHP tables, like List of RHPs in Syracuse, List of NHLs in AL, List of NHLs in NY (none of which are Featured Lists). I don't necessarily suggest adopting the U.S. NRHP table formatting, but I think it still is informative to look at how they are organized. You can adopt what makes sense here. doncram (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more: Perhaps i should acknowledge, i don't understand the difference between Runcorn vs. Halton vs. Norton. The overall list title says "in Runcorn", but then it includes Runcorn and other towns? Also, I see the Grade I listed buildings in Bristol and Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester list-articles use a Location column giving street and town or neighborhood, as well as having a coordinates-like Grid reference column. This provides the location info i'd like to see, but formatting-wise seems wasteful of column-space, as those can be combined into one Location column. Again, hope this helps. doncram (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted I hope this version deals with the above comments. I understand the confusion I had caused. Runcorn is one town (there are no more "towns"); but I had also used it as a geographical area, which was confusing. There is now one table with three sortable columns and the locations expressed more clearly. Are we getting there? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I appreciate the improvements made to the article and work done to develop and improve the accompanying Google map. By the way, I appreciate that you refined coordinates so that the Google map flags point exactly to the two bridges, rather than to the water nearby. All of my previous comments have been addressed in one way or another. Further comments, then i am done:

  • The reorganization to use one sortable table might be revisited (altho i appreciate it was tried). I think i prefer the previous organization, but support the FL promotion either way. I think the previous organization, with some relabelling to clarify Runcorn Centre not Runcorn, has advantages:
    • It broke the list-article into more manageable, readable chunks
    • It provided for a useful table of contents at the top
    • It provided for meaningfully organized list of sites in the Google map link (now all the sites appear listed at the left in the Google map in one list; the previous version showed Grade I vs. other sections).
    • Sortability can be kept in the Grade II list. Sorting the few Grade I ones is not important.
  • The colors used in the color coding are a bit bright, i thought, and they do not tie into any standard for U.K. listed buildings. The colors are not used in the two model articles mentioned (tho those are not mixed lists). However, there is not a color coding system yet developed for U.K. listed buildings, as part of any WikiProject or Manual of Style guidelines. If/when a WikiProject Historic Sites is started up (on my to do list to propose), color coding for grades can be a topic, and any Featured lists can be re-visited. Promoting this article should not be held up for lack of a U.K. historic sites standard. If former separate table organization is adopted, color coding can be dropped.
  • Please say something next to the Google map link other than that the locations "appear all around Runcorn". That was my wording, meant as a placeholder only, written before the Google map was visible. Replace by some meaningful narration descriptive of what the Google map shows, or delete.

Again, nice work. Others' comments about wordings below may have validity, but I assume you'll address what needs to be addressed, and I probably won't comment further, just put me down as Support. Thanks. doncram (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • Two dab links need fixing.
  • "This list includes all of the 58 listed buildings in the current urban area of Runcorn. "
  • "Two of these are classified by English Heritage as being in Grade I, nine in Grade II*, and 47 in Grade II." 47-->forty-seven, comparative quantities should be written out the same.
  • "Buildings are listed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on recommendations provided by English Heritage, who also determine the grading." "who"-->which.
  • "Similarly" Comma after this phrase.
  • "Apart from the ancient structures in Grade I, on the whole the buildings can be divided by date into two groups" What do you mean by "on the whole"?
  • "there was a greater variety of types of building "-->there was a greater variety of building types
  • "the structures are all built in brick or stone. "
  • "A former Augustinian Priory which was reduced"-->A former Augustinian Priory that was reduced
  • Did you take all the pictures used in this article?
  • "This was also built also by Sir John Chesshyre." Extra "also".
  • "Runcorn's first town hall which later became a police station," "which"-->that.
  • "It is now used as shop." Missing "a" before "shop".
  • "A bank in red brick with polished granite columns flanking the entrance and a parapetted roof." "flanking"-->that flank.
  • "A town house dating "-->A town house that dates (Multiple occurences)
  • "It is built in red brick with stone dressings and a slate roof." I think "is"-->was.
  • "A purpose-built library in Egerton Street which was constructed " "which"-->that.
  • "The bridge is operated from the south bank by means of a hydraulic system " Comma after this phrase.
  • "The stone Doric doorcase has an open pediment, and a radial bar fanlight." No comma necessary.
  • "It is beehive-shaped and is approached along a short tunnel which leads into a circular domed chamber." Comma after "tunnel". Dabomb87 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Thanks for the suggestions; all have been dealt with; it is helpful to have these comments when one gets "too close" to the list. "On the whole" deleted - I had not realised the degree of the gap between the two periods in the list. Yes, all the photos are mine (see my intro). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query When you sort the Grades they come out I II II* (or the other way round) which is not the order of importance (or unimportance). Is there any way of getting them to sort I II* II without changing their appearance in the list? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have - brilliant! Many thanks. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Espresso Addict. Apologies for the delay in replying, Peter -- I was going to put these on the talk page, but then realised that the featured list candidacy was already live, so I'm moving them here. First off, congratulations on getting all the photos & putting this together -- I know just how much hard work that entails! I don't see the lack of sub-articles as a problem given that there are descriptions of each building/structure. I'm not sure that creating stubs on grade-II-listed buildings where there's little/no sources other than the listing information is of value to the project. On the other hand, some/all of the grade II* buildings might merit an article (by the way, what's the status on II* -- I thought it was being abolished?)

Grade II* is definitely still in use, where did you hear it might be abolished? Nev1 (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I think it used to be stated in our article on listed buildings. It was possibly one of the plans that was being considered in the reorganisation of the various listings that has now -- thankfully -- been dumped. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to state somewhere what search strategy was used in compilation. I found with Nantwich that searches at the Images of England site missed several listed entities (I think their search engine is broken); also that list isn't up to date or definitive.
The list is up to date and definitive as it has been checked against the borough of Halton's listed building register. It's their duty to maintain an accurate list of LBs in the borough, and I think they handle applications for grades to be changed. Nev1 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be stated explicitly, perhaps as a footnote to the lead sentence that first mentions numbers. The date of the search should also be included, as further buildings will presumably be listed over time. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps mention it as a footnote, rather than in the main body of the article?
The IoE website is comprehensive... as of 2001. If some were missed out when you searched, it's probably because they didn't have images, I think you need to be a member to see them. Nev1 (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is comprehensive of listed buildings, as of the date it was compiled, however I know of many buildings that are miscategorised by CP (I happen to live in one). Also, when I was conducting exhaustive searches I found the search engine repeatedly failed to bring up all relevant articles, even where the CP was correctly stated. I suspect the entries have been hand indexed, rather than using a free text search, and there are several errors. However, if IoE searches were not used as the definitive source, then this isn't relevant to the discussion here. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the history of Runcorn in the lead needs to be pruned/rewritten to make it more specific to the architectural history of the town. A longer discussion of key buildings in the lead would be interesting -- perhaps mention for example Seneschal's House.
  • A wider range of references would be helpful. Are there any other general references on buildings in Halton?
  • Lead image doesn't look good at the size used.
  • I like the Google maps co-ordinates, but think a custom-drawn map instead/in addition would be very valuable.
  • I preferred the earlier version without colours for I, II*, II. The colours should certainly be toned down -- I couldn't read the text through them.
  • What is the default ordering criterion for the columns now? Some entries appeared random.
  • The comments should all use full sentences.
  • Given that the headers allow resorting, comments such as "This was also built by Sir John Chesshyre", "see below", "in the former garden of the house" should probably be avoided. I don't know what the best policy for repeated wikilinks is given the resorting problem -- is there a FL policy on this?
    • In sortable columns, the repeated linking of the same item is necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • References need to be cited in numerical order (though again that could be shot by resorting).
  • Some minor points: Castle Hotel is missing a column. Garden Loggia & Ice House need to state location (part of priory?).

Hope that this is of assistance, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Castle Hotel now has a date. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments made by Truco (out of chronological order, above). Thanks to Nev1 for the actions taken. The comments are mainly about commas, and there is to my understanding no general agreement about their use, especially after "and" (even in the UK). Some of the suggested comments distorted the meaning and would have led to inaccuracies. All the comments made by Truco related to the descriptions so I assume the lead is OK now. Regarding a professional standard of prose, this has of course to apply to the lead. The other FLs relating to listed buildings have no descriptions; I included them to give added value to the list and they were in the form of notes rather than in full sentences (perhaps I should have omitted them altogether). Anyway I take the point and will make the descriptions into full sentences (also recommended by Espresso Addict), with the inevitable risk of repetition of phrases. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the other lists differed in having articles for all the buildings & structures, so the summary wasn't necessary (though it might have been helpful). As I said above, I don't think creating stubs for all grade-II-listed buildings is the best use of time at this stage. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's true for Bristol but not for Greater Manchester. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments by Espresso Addict on 8 January (in the order of points made).

  • You are right, I did miss one - Ivy House, Astmoor. I think I removed that from my memory because it is just a burnt-out wreck; but it's listed so it counts. I've added it, but without a photo - will remedy that when possible. I did use Images of England to find them, supplemented by publications from the local authority. You can find these from Runcorn, Halton, Weston and Norton - although I could not get the last two to download today. Everything is in the list except for the Viaduct, which is outside the urban area. Do you think I ought to include the links to the LA sources somewhere?
  • I think a footnote which explains your search strategy with links to the relevant pdfs would be valuable. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've further amended the lead, but not sure that this is yet satisfactory.
  • I think this could still benefit from a little further work to make the history of the town's growth more related to its architecture & to expand on some interesting points, eg the oldest listed building and the newest, the dates of the priory/castle &c. Some of the writing also reads a little oddly to me. I don't have time right now, but if you drop me a note when you've expanded/edited I'll give it a quick copy edit. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I've included all the references I can find. Pevsner is particularly dismissive and starts his section, "Runcorn is miserable to look at; so the best of luck to the New Runcorn at the time of writing just beginning to emerge". His comments about the town occupy only two pages (plus one page for his hopes about the new town) (pp.324–329). There is only one book about the history of the town since 1887 (Starkey's Old Runcorn); Greene's book about the excavations at Norton Priory; nothing about Runcorn's buildings.
  • Yes, I'd read the Pevsner description -- he really didn't like the place! Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What size do you suggest? It has been described as "the finest decorated Norman doorway in Cheshire".(Thompson, F. H. (1966). "Norton Priory, near Runcorn, Cheshire". Archaeological Journal. 123: 62–66.) so I would like to include it. Is the problem its size or the quality of the photograph?
  • It looks ok at 220px and above at my screen resolution, but you might get into trouble for fixing the width -- I've been told it violates style a few times. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've increased it to 220px. My understanding is that the lead image should be 300px (that applies to landscape orientation) - but I can't find the advice just now. This would be too much for portrait orientation and I think 220px should be OK. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have the skill to make a custom-drawn map.
  • Fine. I think that's a nice to have, not a requirement, and there are certainly several other similar FLs which don't have an in-text map. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colours toned down (not sure that I like them!).
  • Better, but a bit pastely. Have you tried the colours used by the American lists? Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The default ordering reflects the history of the list since nomination. Initially it was Grade I; Grade II*; Grade II, with the last split into more-or-less geographical areas. Now it is all merged into one, in the same sort of order. What do you suggest - grades, dates, types of buildings, or what?
  • I don't think it matters overmuch, as long as the ordering strategy is clear. When I checked, I couldn't work out what feature it was ordering on. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Addressed; with many more wikilinks as advised.
  • This will have to wait for any change in the default order.
  • Done (don't know how that disappeared - thanks Nev1); addressed - is this what you meant?
  • What do you think to adding Norton Priory to the first column? eg "Garden Loggia, Norton Priory" Espresso Addict (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I believe the article now meets all the criteria, and is at least equivalent in quality to the two existing Featured Lists on UK listed buildings. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article has been improved very substantially during its nomination, and in my view it now more than meets the criteria expected of a featured list. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments by doncram on 8 January. Sorry, doncram, I missed your comments above. I have made a simple amendment to the end of the lead which I think is adequate. Regarding the organisation of the list, I await consensus; I am content to go along with what will best suit the reader. I still prefer dividing it into grades. After that not sure - dates, types, location - what is most useful to the reader? It would certainly be good to have agreed colours representing the three grades - my choices were (obviously) arbitrary (and it took me some time to find out how to get more subtle colours); although if we split the list into grades, do we need colours at all? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up. I was indeed wondering what you preferred. Sounds like you and I both prefer the previous organization into 3 Grade tables, expecting that is best for readers. Within each Grade table, I think the natural order is to follow the order in the first column, which here is name of place.
About colors for grades, following the template system designed for U.S. National Register properties, i just created templates so that {{Grade I colour}}, {{Grade II* colour}}, {{Grade II colour}} can be used instead of hard-coded color specs. (Update: you can spell color/colour either way, as in {{Grade I color}} or {{Grade I colour}}) That way you can try out different colors in just one place, and any new agreement on colors would be implemented automatically through any and all articles on Listed buildings that call these color templates. The colors chosen by wp: NRHP are also arbitrary but I believe their use provides a unifying motif in two big systems of U.S. list-articles under List of RHPs and List of NHLs by state. These list-articles currently index about 15,000 wikipedia articles on individual NRHP/NHL sites, most of which include an NRHP infobox coded to use the same colors.
For this list-article though, if you redivide the big table back into 3 Grade tables (which I support), then it is appropriate to drop the Grade column and all use of the 3 colors as well, in my view. In the U.S. list-articles, especially for big lists where it is useful to be able to say how many items are in the list, we mostly choose to include a numbering/count column at the left. This column carries the color-coding nicely i think. With no numbering column here (and not a need to add one), the colors don't come in as naturally. If there were a broader system of Listed buildings articles with color use, though, the colors could be used to color the headers of tables, e.g. use Grade I color to color header cells of table of Grade I buildings. This use of colors for table headers in systems of coordinated lists is not yet in practice in any Featured Lists, though, AFAIK. doncram (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have written an article on the Grade II* listed Castle Hotel which has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle Hotel, Halton. Can I have some support in its retention please. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The decision was Speedy Keep; thanks to all those who helped. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report The list has been re-ordered following the suggestions by Espresso Addict on the article's talk page and more copy editing has been carried out. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing comments I have promoted this page to WP:FL; for any future lists of similar scope, a Peer review would be good. FLC should not be used as a substitute, and that's what this became. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:51, 13 January 2009 (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_list_candidates/Listed_buildings_in_Runcorn,_Cheshire&oldid=1126721817"