The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:07, 15 December 2012 [1].
Grade I listed churches in Lancashire ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because it is the next in a series of lists, by county, of Grade I listed churches. It follows closely the format of three previous successful nominations, the last being Grade I listed churches in Merseyside. The text has been copyedited, and there is a linked article about every church in the list. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 10:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from TBrandley ( talk) 00:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
TBr and ley 23:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
|
Comments
Only issue I could find, great work. NapHit ( talk) 16:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Bencherlite Talk 20:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply |
---|
*Excellent work, as ever. I note that some of the references have "." after them (e.g. "Hartwell & Pevsner 2009, pp. 332–334.") but your website ones don't (e.g. "Listed Buildings, English Heritage, retrieved 12 May 2012") because you're mixing families of citation templates. Changing {{
citation}} to {{
cite web}} will fix this, FYI, although it's not a very big deal. Otherwise only two comments, I think, both about the opening paragraph, strangely enough. I think it would be better to use an official copy of the 1972 Act at
[3] rather than Wikisource, but unitary authorities post-date the 1972 Act anyway, so you might be better off finding a more modern source for the county history/structure; not terribly controversial but good to back it up. Secondly, and it might just be me, I still end up slightly puzzled as to whether this is a list of churches in the non-metropolitan county, or the ceremonial county....
Bencherlite
Talk
10:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
reply
|
Resolved comments from Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply |
---|
*Comment Another good example of these county-based lists, which have established a clear and user-friendly "house style". I concur with the supporting comments above, but just a few small observations:
|