Jump to content

Talk:Church architecture in Scotland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Church architecture in Scotland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 20:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on Ealgyth. I had to give it 24 hours to start looking at this. Having waited months for reviews, I think this is my fifth in five days. I think there is a cultural references to buses here somewhere.--SabreBD (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Some convoluted prose that could use some reworking and a few spots where the prose reads like a list of churches without much reason for them to be listed.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • Lead:
    • "..Christianity spread, parish churches..." I think you mean plain churches here, were there really parishes in the period before the 8th century, which is what you're discussing by implication.
 Done Getting ahead of myself in the summary here.--SabreBD (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something's off in this sentence - "New churches produced in a plain style, often with a T-plan that emphasised the pulpit and preaching." I think you mean "New churches were produced in a plain style, often with a T-plan that emphasised the pulpit and preaching."?
 Done A missing "were".--SabreBD (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early churches:
    • "The introduction of Christianity into Scotland from Ireland from the sixth century, led to the construction of the first churches." I think you can lose the comma without problems.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link for "turves"?
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Romanesque:
    • "It is associated with the ecclesiastical reforms..." err... no, in Scotland it is associated with Malcolm, but your preceeding sentence is about Italy, so you need to clarify this. Suggest "In its Scottish form it is associated with the ecclesiastical reforms..." or something similar.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The oldest Romanesque church.." well, actually, you mean the oldest Scots Romanesque church, right?
 Done I guess if it was the style would be Scottishesque.--SabreBD (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gothic:
    • I got lost in the various commas in this sentence "The style that developed from the Romanesque, originating in twelfth-century France, now known as Gothic, with its characteristic pointed arches, ribbed vaults and flying buttresses, began to reach Scotland in the twelfth century." Can we break it up into smaller sentences, that might help?
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, very convoluted "The carvings at Rosslyn Chapel, created in the mid-fifteenth century, depicting the progression of the seven deadly sins, are considered some of the finest in the Gothic style." Can this be simplified to make it easier to digest?
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaissance:
    • "It may have been influenced by close contacts..." which - the prependicular Gothic we were just discussing or the other style mentioned at the start of the paragraph?
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reformation:
    • "Calvinists rejected ornamentation in places of worship, with no need for elaborate buildings divided up by ritual, resulting in the widespread destruction of Medieval church furnishings, ornaments and decoration." Again very convoluted, suggest breaking into two sentences.
    • "There was a need to adapt and build new churches.." as written this states that there was a need to adapt new churches and build new churches... I don't think that's what is meant. Did you mean "There was a need to adapt old buildings and build new churches..."?
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Many of the earliest buildings were simple gabled rectangles, a style that continued to be built into the seventeenth century, as at Dunnottar Castle in the 1580s, Greenock (1591) and Durness (1619),[22] but often with windows on the south wall (and none on the north), which became a unique feature of Reformation kirks." Convoluted. Suggest "Many of the earliest buildings were simple gabled rectangles, a style that continued to be built into the seventeenth century. Examples include Dunnottar Castle (1580s), Greenock (1591) and Durness (1619).[22] These new buildings often had windows on the south wall and none on the north, which became a unique feature of Reformation kirks."
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • General:
    • ONe thing I noticed especially in the post-Reformation sections was the constant long lists of examples that tended to blur together. An example :Early Church of Scotland examples included Errol (1831–33) and Alyth (1837–39). For the Catholic Church, examples included St. Anthony's Chapel, Murthly (1845); for the Free Church, McBridge Free Church, Rothsay (1845); for the Episcopalians, St. Thomas, Rutland Place, Edinburgh (1842–43) and St. Baldricks, North Berwick (1861–62).[34] Later nineteenth-century examples included the church at Strathbungo (1873), and St. Ninian's, Cathcart Road (1888), Glasgow, both designed by W. G. Rowan." ... this is just blur to most readers - there isn't really a reason for anyone to actually pay attention as there is nothing given to show WHY these examples have been chosen. There are other places where we don't know why these listed examples are chosen - surely there is a reason that we're being given this information? The next paragraph from this example is better, it reads less like a listing of "architect - church" and more as an exposisiton of what was going on in the various changes and churches.
I take the point about the example overkill. The point in this particular passage is that all the denominations used the same style, so I made that clearer and gave one example for each. I have also cut down some of the listing where multiple examples make no point. I am not sure if that is quite enough, but it is definitely an improvement. I should point out that sometimes it is extremely difficult to boil down some of the subjective language of the secondary sources, who tend to talk in terms rather like "light and airy structure reminiscent of a Coleridge poem". It can be hard sometimes to work out how to represent that without going beyond the sources. I really want to know if it had a large porch like one used in Rome. Let me know what you think or if there are any other sections that could use some clarity or pruning.--SabreBD (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Please don't take my review as meaning I think it's up to FA standards for prose ... I can do clarity and comprehensibility, but I'm not a great polisher of prose, so if you're thinking you want to go to FAC, I suggest finding a good copyeditor who knows FA standards. Passing it for GA now! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Church architecture in Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Church_architecture_in_Scotland&oldid=1206689032"