Jump to content

Talk:Church of St John of the Collachium/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 21:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 00:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a review. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and content

[edit]
  • John the Baptist, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and various other saints I don't love the wording here, given it appears to be referring to the three as saints (with obvious issues), or referring just to Mary, despite John also being considered a saint.
I have joined you in chewing, I'll see if anything comes to mind when I next look at the page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After 1522 (converted to a mosque) This is very confusing regarding the buildings subject, which appears to be the building. It was not "closed" in 1522, it just became used for a different purpose. If the article is about the building as it functioned as a church, then discussion of its destruction and use as a mosque should be less integrated with the subject and should be split into a legacy section or the sort.
  • link coffered, and probably move it to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE
Agree, ideally you would find another adjective to separate them. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in a description of the building, commented that ? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Loses words but actually places more demand on the reader in terms of working memory/following the thread, so I'm not sure that's actually an improvement -- although, admittedly, I'm not sure I've seen that there's a real problem needing to be fixed here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • believed to have been made from the bowl used by Jesus to wash the feet of his disciples... Other relics included a bowl used by Jesus these are different relics?
  • and one of the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus seems in bad taste to have this as a relic haha
  • redlink Charles Alleman de Rochechinard if he's notable, else you don't have to include the name of who donated it.
  • used for the lavabo (ceremonial washing of the priest's hands) I am shamefully ignorant of this, but according to the wiki page, lavabo seems to refer more to the device than the act?
    • It's both -- from that article: In ecclesiastical usage it refers to all of: the basin in which the priest washes their hands; the ritual that surrounds this action in the Catholic Mass; and the architectural feature or fitting where a basin or place for one is recessed into the side wall of the sanctuary, or projects from it
  • : over The double use of colons in this sentence should be replaced with breaking it up into a new sentence.#
  • struck gunpowder that had been stored Wordy sentence

Thanks for your time with the review -- replies above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All looking good, some responses. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • [7] Magenta clockclock the source concludes that because it was present in the chapter general, it had "already been regulated." This may mean in practice, but could also mean these instructions had already been "laid down".
  • [14] Green tickY Consider adding a JSTOR ID and/or DOI
  • [21] Green tickY
  • [28] Green tickY although I am unsure why page 31 is cited
  • [35] Green tickY
  • [42] Green tickY
  • [49] Green tickY
  • [57] Magenta clockclock Chapter doesn't mention 1945. Consider adding DOI.

Other

[edit]
  • Neutral Green tickY
  • Broad / summary style Magenta clockclock see discussion of "After 1522 (converted to a mosque)"
  • No COPYVIO / OR Green tickY earwig down :/
  • Stable Green tickY
  • Illustrated appropriately tagged? Green tickY

Suggestions

[edit]
  • and presided over and was presided over sounds more natural, even though it's repeating was
  • Redlink Pietro Lojacono in the lead as well, and also redlink Anna-Maria Kasdagli if it's notable that she was the archeologist. If it's not notable, then you can elide her name in the same way as the 1988 investigation.
    • My preference is to minimise redlinks in the lead and infobox -- as it's shorter, they draw the eye and distract more than they do in the body, and as it's geared more towards casual visitors and novices than to experts, they have less value as prompts to create a new article on that topic. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm happy with the modifications, and don't think anything outstanding is a dealbreaker to the article being well written and passing the other criteria. Passing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.