Talk:Julian of Norwich/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 21:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review. Comments on a first read-through:

General comments:

It is not clear whether the Revelations of Divine Love is synonymous with the Short Text or the Long Text, or encompasses both. It looks to me from our article on the Revelations that it covers both versions?
The lead says that Julian had visions of Jesus and of the Virgin Mary; the body does not mention Mary at all. Which is correct?
The historian Janina Ramirez has suggested that Julian's use of English was a sensible choice, considering the inexplicable nature of her writings. Huh? This doesn't make sense to me at all.
There is one citation needed tag, and several other uncited claims throughout the article.

Comments on prose:

English Peasants' Revolt: what other Peasants' Revolt is going on in Norwich? I'd cut "English" as redundant.
This was followed with the 1843 reissue of Cressey's book by George Hargreaves Parker, followed by a modernised version of the text, published by J. T. Hecker in 1864. Repetition of "followed with/by": rephrase?
nowadays: sounds colloquial to my ear. I would say "today" instead.
Norwich may possibly have been: possibly is superfluous here.
The priory's income was mainly generated from 'livings' it acquired: explain what "livings" mean in this context, please.
Where these churches had an anchorite cell, they enhanced the income and the reputation of the priory still further. why?
listed as one of twenty-nine does "listed as" add anything here? I would cut as excess verbiage.
What is a ruthless restoration, as opposed to any other kind?
There are four known instances of wills which name Julian: another opportunity for greater concision. "Four known wills" is sufficient.
In the discussion of wills, we are told "twelve shillings", "12 pennies", "eight pennies", "40d", and "20 pennies". Per MOS:NUMERAL, "twelve" and "12" are both acceptable, but it's probably better not to have both in such close proximity. And if we are spelling out pennies/shillings in every other instance, I would avoid using d in the middle.
She was aged six: "she was six"
It has been speculated that she may have educated as a young girl: at minimum, there is a missing word here: "may have been educated". But again we are doubling up on uncertainty here: "it has been speculated that she was educated".
making their copies of her writings: "making copies"
Julian's book was largely unknown until 1670, when her book: repetition: "Julian's book"/"her book"
Two other copied manuscripts: as opposed to spontaneously generated manuscripts? No need for "copied"!
The existence of the manuscripts does not imply that it is known just what Julian herself wrote. I think I know what you mean here, but there has to be a clearer way of putting it.
A more nuanced reading relates it to the scholastics conveniēns or "fitting" This is totally opaque to me, except for the suspicion that "scholastics" is missing an apostrophe.
she reckoned reads as colloquial to me. "she believed", perhaps?
saw him as our brother as well: I don't like "our" at the best of times, and nor does the Manual of Style, but in this context it is at best skirting dangerously close to the neutral-point-of-view line.
it is possible she will first be given an 'equivalent canonization'. What is an "equivalent canonization"?

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above, all of which are now sorted, apart from the remaining lack of citations. The phrase 'ruthless restoration' should stand - you get all sorts of church restorations by the Victorians (major/enthusiastic/general/sympathetic/massive/significant etc.) Amitchell125 (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly improved. re. "ruthless restoration": I still don't actually know what this means, or how it differs from any other kind. Is it synonymous with a major restoration? I'm happy for you to keep the phrase, if you expand on what it actually means!

Will do. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have only spotchecked a couple of sources thus far, but have already noticed one case where I couldn't find support for the claim in the source (tagged here) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed all the sentences without citations at User:Amitchell125/sandbox#Julian_of_Norwich and I'm working through them all and deleting from the list as I go. Please let me know of others you might be aware of. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far. A few final points:

The article seems to be somewhat confused about whether Julian's writings were well-known during her own lifetime:
- [Carrow Priory] would have honoured such a famous writer by making copies of her work, and burying her in the priory grounds. This seems to suggest that they were.
- Frances Beer has commented upon how so few of Julian's manuscripts have survived, considering the reputation she enjoyed in her lifetime. So does this.
- Julian was largely unknown until 1670 this, on the other hand, seems to suggest that she wasn't well known in her lifetime.
- A lack of references to her work during her own time may indicate that she kept her writings with her in her cell, so that the religious authorities were unaware of them. As does this.
Julian's shorter work, which may have been written not long after Julian's visions in May 1373, is now known as her Short Text. As with the Long Text, the original manuscript was lost, but not before at least one copy was made by a scribe, who named Julian as the author. [...] Now part of MS Additional 37790, the manuscripts are held in the British Library. It is possible that the Short Text in MS Additional 37790 is work of a later copyist. If I am understanding this correctly, the two underlined parts of this paragraph are making the same claim? If so, the latter should be removed as superfluous and potentially confusing... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as is known, her writings were not well known at all during her lifetime, I'll clarify that. Second point easily sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all that I am still waiting on is clarification of "ruthless restoration"... (There's also a slight concern with the stained-glass window images: I am not sure whether or not the designs are copyright-protected or not. c:COM:FOP UK suggests that stained glass is a "work of artistic craftsmanship" and therefore acceptable as freedom of panorama, so I'm inclined to accept them for the moment, but you may be queried in the future, especially if you intend to bring the article to FAC. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a note added regarding the "ruthless restoration", to nail the clarification issue. I had a quick look at 'Category:20th-century stained-glass windows' in Wikimedia Commons - there are lots out there. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All looking good. I'm happy to pass this now: excellent work! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks for your work, Caeciliusinhorto. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]