Talk:Lärbro Church

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lärbro Church. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224162329/http://larbro.se/Museumkrigssjukh.htm to http://www.larbro.se/Museumkrigssjukh.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lärbro Church/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 12:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I will complete my review in a day or two. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• The infobox needs more parameters — please see Template:Infobox church and add as many as you can. I have used these in Convent of Santo Domingo (Valencia): location, founded date, status, style, heritage designation and designated date. All of these could be included, but also add more if you can.
• I have copyedited the lead a little. — I did notice that it has "after World War II". However, the prose implies that they were being treated "during" World War II. If it is "during", use that instead of "after". If it was "after", clarify that in the prose. Or if both are accurate, use "during and after World War II" in the lead.

• Double checked it and changed to "during and after".

Location and surroundings

• "swampy valley nearby" — remove "nearby" as it hangs a little awkwardly at the end and it's redundant because the distance part is covered in the first line of this section.

• Fixed.

• "The location of the church and a defensive tower, a so-called kastal [sv], adjacent to it can thus be explained by its former strategic location." — This sentence could imply that the church + the defensive tower are being referred to as the kastal. Also, terms like "so-called" should generally be avoided. Perhaps you can write it as "The location of a defensive tower [sv], adjacent to the church can be explained by its former strategic location." or "The location of a kastal [sv] (defensive tower), adjacent to the church can be explained by its former strategic location."

• Opted for the last suggestion which I think is quite elegant.

• "Communication between the floor was originally possible with a ladder, but today an external wooden staircase provides access to the tower." — This sentence seemingly discusses two different points, but implies they are related. If so, I would suggest splitting them; and use "floors" instead of "floor". But if both parts of the sentence talk about the same floor, please clarify that; if a particular floor was accessed with the ladder, write it as "Communication between the third floor was originally possible with a ladder, but today an external wooden staircase provides access to it".

• I looked this up in the source again since I myself was a bit confused by this and rewrote it. I hope it reads better now?

• Cannot use "today" because it is reporting on something that is happening now, instead of an encyclopediac entry of what happened later — Something like "however, an external wooden staircase provided access to the tower later" and "As of 2017, the tower is used for temporary exhibitions." should be used.

• Very good point, changed it.

• One line paragraphs are generally discouraged — I would recommend you either elaborate and add a couple of more lines to it, or merge with the next paragraph.

• Moved it up. It's a bit awkward and I guess the article could do without it as well but it's not completely uninteresting, at the same time. What do you think?

• "Today, there are 45 graves from this time at the cemetery, including nine Jewish graves." → "There are 45 graves from this period at the cemetery, including nine of Jewish victims."

• Much better, thank you!

History

• I have done some minor copyedits.

'I'm very happy and grateful for these.

Architecture

Tower

• Link — Gotland.

• Done.

• "The lesenes here end in pinnacles which stand out between the gables which end the wall sections." — Avoid using "which" twice.

• I could hardly understand what I've written myself. I removed the end of the sentence since I think that's rather self-evident.

• "Just below the gables, all around the tower, are pairs of pointed arch windows leading to a gallery which runs around the tower." → "All around the tower, there are pairs of pointed arch windows leading to a gallery just below the gables."

• Thanks, fixed.

• "The wooden roof is not original but probably of the original shape." → "The wooden roof was rebuilt but probably follows the original shape."

• Changed.

• "Inside, the ground floor of the tower is covered by" → "The ground floor of the tower is covered by"

• Changed.

• The second paragraph is too long. — I would recommend splitting it into two; "The capitals are decorated with sculptures depicting scenes from the life of Christ." seems like a good point to begin a new paragraph.

• I split it as you suggested, I agree it looks much better.

Nave and chancel

• "The nave and chancel are on the other hand typical for medieval churches on Gotland." — Mention "In contrast to the tower" or something like that instead of "on the other hand". Perhaps, "In contrast to the tower, the nave and chancel are typical for medieval churches on Gotland."

• Thank you for the suggestion, that's a lot better.

Murals and furnishings

• "unusual" — is subjective without an explanation like above. Consider using "uncommon", "rare", or something like that instead. Alternatively, explain why it is unusual.

• I changed the wording for the whole part about the murals. I hope it's an improvement?

• "from c. 1400 or the late 14th century" → "from the late 14th century or c. 1400" — for a linear timeline.

• Fixed.

• "The baptismal font of the church is made of sandstone and dates from the end of the 17th century, and is decorated with festoons." → "The baptismal font of the church, decorated with festoons, is made of sandstone and dates from the end of the 17th century."

• Fixed.

• Please rearrange contents in a linear timeline. For instance, the chair from the 13th century shouldn't be mentioned after something from the 17th.

• Done (almost; I kept the altarpiece first because it's also such a central item, what do you think?)

Current use and heritage status

• Title should not have "Current" in it — use "Later" instead.

• Actually, changed to "Use and heritage status", is it OK?

References

• Reference 4, 5, 30 and 32 — need language parameters.
• Reference 31 — per MOS:ALLCAPS, title should not be in all caps even if it is that way in the source.

Bibliography

• A couple of sources require the language parameter.

That should be all for now. It is an interesting article and should pass. Thank you for your work. — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for many very good points. I've started by addressing the prose parts above. I hope to be able to continue with the other parts tomorrow. Really great input, the article is already looking a lot better I think. Yakikaki (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hi again The Most Comfortable Chair, I've now fixed the lacking language parameters in the sources and the Bibliography section. So that should be done now. As to the infobox, I've been thinking about it but I am not keen on expanding the infobox. My reason is basically that I think it would clutter the article and in this case would add quite little; I think there's a difference here between e.g. Lund Cathedral which I also expanded but which is a building with a more central historical position, if one can say so? The main interesting things about Lärbro Church - its unusual architecture, its cemetery - are not easily summed up in a table. In fact I think in this article, the infobox could be scrapped entirely, but I included it because it gives the one main advantage of providing an overview map which I think could be especially good since the church is not in or near any widely known settlements. I would also support my argument by referring to WP:IBX which states "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.". Let me know what you think of my way of reasoning here and perhaps we can discuss it further. I'm not totally opposed to any changes here but I thought I'd give you my view of the question before we proceed. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Yakikaki. You make a good point and on re-examination, I agree that it would indeed cause unnecessary clutter for an article of this size. All seems to be done then! — The Most Comfortable Chair 13:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Final

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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:

   The article is detailed and well-written. It was a lovely read and it meets the criteria. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 13:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and for a very constructive and good review! Yakikaki (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)