Talk:Chew Stoke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Chew Stoke is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] GA Promotion

I have recently reviewed this article & found that it quite easily meets the criterion for being a good article. So I have promoted it to GA status. My congratulations to all the contributors for doing a fine job.

Cheers

Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 16:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chew Stoke FAC

Here are some things that may need to be fixed:

  • Certain FAC reviewers prefer articles about England to state distances in kilometres first, rather than miles.
  • There are too many one line paragraphs.
  • "high quality 8-day movements", "and 3 teachers who had been evacuated" - numbers less than ten should be written in words.
  • Ref 14 has a dead link.
Response - Thanks I've fixed link 14 & changed the numbers under 10 but i believe it has been accepted that UK articles have miles first.— Rod talk 18:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the images in the Points of interest section need to be reorganised as text isn't allowed to be sandwiched in between two images. Epbr123 18:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Response - images moved &/or deleted— Rod talk 18:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

All the web refs need to include the publishers, even when the publisher is the same as the title, eg. RealGames is published by RealGames.co.uk. Epbr123 08:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think this sentence is gramatical - "It has been a matter of controversy, surrounding planning permission and the balance between residential, social and employment uses". Epbr123 22:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so I've rewritten that sentence. See if you think it's any better now. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairseat Farmhouse

"In the garden is a large Evergreen Oak (Ilex) which measured 98 feet (30 m) across until half of it broke away in a gale in 1976."

Should this say 30m high, not across? --Malleus Fatuarum 22:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the copyediting. About the Oak tree, the source I referenced (Hucker) says "it had measured 98 feet across" (I added the metric conversion).— Rod talk 22:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem. But are you sure Hucker is correct? 98 feet across—assuming "across" means in diameter—is one hell of a size for a tree. Have you seen this tree for yourself? How would the 1976 gale have reduced its diameter by half? Its height I could understand ... maybe I'm just being too sceptical :) --Malleus Fatuarum 22:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the tree in the last few years & it is old & has been severely cut back - so it is difficult to guess how big it was back in 1976.— Rod talk 07:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I was sceptical because when I first read "98 feet across", I thought that meant the trunk was 98 feet in diameter. But of course what it meant was that the tree's canopy was 98 feet across, not its trunk. Still one helluva big tree though. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 19:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
and it's not unreasonable for English oaks to grow that large over a few hundred years.— Timotab Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!) 18:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chew Valley North Ward

I notice in this article, and several other of the articles about this area, the ward name is given as "Chew Valley North Ward". But isn't the name of the ward "Chew Valley North", so the "Ward" ought not to be capitalised? as in "... the ward of Chew Valley North"? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are right I've just checked the local council page about the ward & it is "the ward of Chew Valley North".— Rod talk 21:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in August 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Cricketgirl 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Proofreader: Finetooth 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grade II listed buildings

I got stopped by the last two sentences in the Grade II listed buildings section:

"The Methodist Chapel was built in 1815/16 after religious services had been established at Fairseat Farm.[4][39] There is even a listed milestone at Stoke Villace south of the main village, with the inscription "8 miles to Bristol".[40]

Wondering if 1815/16 meant "1815 or 1816" or "1815 and 1816", I clicked on reference 39. It took me to a photo of the chapel and a caption suggesting that construction occurred quite a bit later than that. Something is amiss, or I am missing something. Could be either.

My problem with the sentence about the milestone is that I don't see what it's logically connected to. Is the milestone related in some way to the chapel? A puzzle.

It's my job as proofreader to raise these nit-picky issues, but I hasten to add that the article in general reads wonderfully well, and I had to work hard to find things to complain about. Finetooth 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the point of the milestone sentence is that it is unusual for milestones to be classified as listed buildings. Bluap 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work on this. I will check the Hucker book when I get home - as this has the date of construction. The milestone is in Stoke Villace (a hamlet/suburb) of the Village, & yes the reason it is included is that is unusual for these to be listed. It is not connected to the chapel but the sentances were previously linked when there were complaints about too many short paragraphs.— Rod talk 07:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest splitting the two sentences again into separate paragraphs and fleshing each one out with one or two more sentences. The captions you link to in the references provide enough detail, perhaps, to do this, and you may have other sources as well. The caption for the milestone, for example, includes this: "Milestone about 100 metres south west of Stoke Villice, at NGR 558606 II Milestone. Early C19. Limestone with cast iron plate. Round headed stone, plate with shaped head." By the way, looking at this made me think we might still have the spelling of Stoke Villace/Village wrong. When I saw Villice this morning in the milestone caption, I Googled a bit to confirm. Villice appears to be correct. Where does this name come from? Why Villice? I am curious. Finetooth 17:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've split them into 2 short paragraphs. A bit of checking does give Villice as correct (however it's wrong on one of the Ordnance Survey maps I have) I've checked several local history books: Ross, Lesley (Ed.) (2004). Before the Lake: Memories of the Chew Valley. The Harptree Historic Society. ISBN 0-9548832-0-9. , Hucker, Ernest (1997). Chew Stoke Recalled in Old Photographs. Ernest Hucker. ISBN 0953170004. , Durham, I. & M. (1991). Chew Magna and the Chew Valley in old photographs. Redcliffe Press. ISBN 978-1-872971-61-2.  and Firth, Hannah (2007). Mendip from the air. Taunton: Somerset County Council. ISBN 9780861833900.  and they support the spelling but give no clues as to the origin of the name. I also happen to know that Robinson, Stephen (1992). Somerset Place Names. Wimbourne: The Dovecote Press Ltd. ISBN 1874336032.  doesn't include it although I don't have a copy to hand. I could go & ask some of the locals who have lived in the village for 80 odd years but would that count as original research.— Rod talk 19:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Finetooth 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Pass

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Epbr123 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)