Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chew Stoke

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 promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

[edit] Chew Stoke

previous FAC

This article about a small Somerset village was previously nominated and the issues identified addressed. Many of the comments were about the need for copyediting which I believe have now been addressed by User:Malleus Fatuarum and others from the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. I beleive that the artcicle now meets the featured article criteria.— Rod talk 08:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Pretty thourough article, but I do have some comments before I can make a decision on whether to support:
    • Those convert templates are very useful and it thought me something new. However, the WP:MOS requires that the first instance of a unit is wikified. The template allows for it, but none of the units are linked in the article.Y Done
    • "Bilbie clocks date from 1724 and are highly prized." Do you mean that all clocks were made in 1724? If not, perhaps 'date back to' may be more a more accurate phrase.Y Done
    • Coverage: How many members are there on the village council? How many people are there on the police force? Which fire station serves them?Y Done
    • "It is currently represented by Councillor Malcolm Hannay,"
      Does 'it' refer to the village council or the unitary authority of Bath and North East Somerset?Y Done
    • In demographics: "The area is largely rural, with several farms, both arable and dairy."Y Done
      This phrase is a repeat from the previous section and the lead. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Response - thanks for pointing these out - hopefully they have been revised appropriately?— Rod talk 16:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. - Mgm|(talk) 18:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pass & support
    • On the basis that its good enough. Leranedo 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have slight concerns about the sources below, but I would need a second opinion before opposing.
    • [1] - seems to be self-published. Although, it might be acceptable as it is by a local historian.
    • [2] - the article is based on an unpublished survey. Unpublished works may not have had enough fact-checking to be reliable.
    • [3] - based on an unpublished survey. Epbr123 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Response to take your concern individually
  • [4] is self published but the author is an established local historian & tour guide - I ahve not heard any complaints about its reliability but would accept it is not verified by external sources.
  • [5] & [6] are both from the "Images of England" site by English Heritage & are about as authoritive as you can get in England. To quote from their web site "English Heritage is the Government's statutory adviser on the historic environment. Officially known as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, English Heritage is an Executive Non-departmental Public Body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Our powers and responsibilities are set out in the National Heritage Act (1983) and today we report to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport." I think they count as independent and reliable. Many of the descriptions used in granting listed building status come from the books by Nikolaus Pevsner, which are one of the most definitive reference sources we have for historic buildings. — Rod talk 17:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Excellent article. Well done! -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.