Talk:Plan of Saint Gall/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 13:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very pleased to pick this one up. It looks most interesting. It may be a few days before I can get through it, but I didn't want to overlook it. Hope that's ok. KJP1 (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Articles passes quick-fail assessment. Main review to follow.

Main review

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose):

The prose is generally to a good standard and I'll Pass on this criteria subject to consideration of some suggestions for possible improvements below.

Lede

"The Plan of Saint Gall is a famous medieval architectural drawing" - while it certainly is, do we need the "famous"? I think the article establishes the importance without the slightly POV term.

Agreed, removed. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"dating from between the years 820–830 AD" - perhaps just, "dating from 820–830 AD"?

Done.

"including churches, houses, stables, kitchens, workshops, brewery, infirmary, and even a special house for bloodletting" - I wonder if we need a few articles. And the "and even a special house for bloodletting" sounds a bit "golly!" Perhaps, "including churches, houses, stables, kitchens, workshops, a brewery, an infirmary, and a house for bloodletting"?

Added links, and removed the "even". --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"based on the manuscript's tituli" - I appreciate you give a link but I wonder if it's unnecessarily obscure. Perhaps, "annotations"/"captions", or some such, with the linked "tituli" in following brackets?
"was so named because it is dedicated to Gozbert abbot of Saint Gall, the depicted church is supposed to keep the relics of the saint, and it was kept at the famous medieval monastery library of the Abbey of St. Gall – Stiftsbibliothek Sankt Gallen – where it remains to this day (Ms 1092)" - This seems to be trying to do three things; who it is named after, what the church's purpose was, and where the plan's now held. I'd suggest breaking it up. "was so named because it is dedicated to Gozbert, abbot of Saint Gall. The planned church was intended to hold the relics of Saint Gall. The plan itself was kept at the famous medieval monastery library of the Abbey of St. Gall – Stiftsbibliothek Sankt Gallen – where it remains (Ms 1092)"?

Reworded, largely along those lines. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"object of intense interest" - is "intense" a little POV and over-the-top? Does the sentence lose by its removal?

Changed to a significant object of interest --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Motivations behind the Plan

This looks fine but I wonder if we can have a date or two for context. I know we can pick them up from the Sources but perhaps, "Horn and Born in their 1979 work, The Plan of Saint Gall", and one or two others?

The manuscript

"The Plan was created from five parchments sewn together measuring 45 inches by 31 inches (113 cm by 78 cm) and drawn in red ink lines for the buildings, and brown ink for lettered inscriptions" - is that the measurement of each parchment? Probably not. So, "The Plan was created from five parchments sewn together and measures 45 inches by 31 inches (113 cm by 78 cm) and is drawn in red ink lines for the buildings, and brown ink for lettered inscriptions"?

Reworded, and split into two sentences. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"finally a fifth parchment was added to the bottom to accommodate the livestock quarters" - "finally a fifth parchment was added to the bottom to accommodate the designs for the livestock quarters"?

Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Dedication

"Gozbertus, the Abbot of St Gall from 816–36" - the same guy mentioned as "the abbot of Saint Gall, Gozbert" in Motivations. We therefore need consistency - Gozbert or Gozbertus?

Architectural design and structures

"which follow the cardinal points" - you should link "cardinal points" here, rather than in the next para.

Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"reserved for the elite monastic" - "monastic elite"?

Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"that the authors of the Plan may have followed, for the layout of the structures," - superfluous comma.

Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The monk's cloister

"The structure of the cloister is highly symbolical" - "symbolic"?

Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The abbot's house

"its porticoes" - I don't think "porticos" has an "e".

The OED lists both as acceptable plurals, and includes a 1992 usage of porticoes. And porticoes wins out on Google ngrams. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The basilica

"The transept, the presbytery, the nave and the two apses (dedicated to Saint Peter to the west and Saint Paul to the east) being solely for the ascetics' use" - there's a verb missing here; was it originally a clause rather than a sentence?
"three of them "railed off" so to impede the entry of laymen" - perhaps, "three of them "railed off" to block the entry of laymen"?

Changed to "to prevent". --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative works - Models

"The Plan has a tradition of model making" - perhaps, "The Plan has inspired a tradition of model making"?

Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This became the inspiration for the 1979 book" - "This became the inspiration for the book he co-authored in 1979 with Walter Horn"?

Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

b (MoS):

Not my strongest suit, but looks ok.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references)

These look fine, but I'm not sure the way you've cited the Plan of St Gall in the Bibliography works. Can't we have a link/date/publisher?

b (citations to reliable sources):

All sources look totally reliable but some sections need them. The most obvious is the Models section, which has no referencing at all, but the St Gall Project's rather light, and with no concluding cite, and the Campus Galli is a bit light:

c (OR):

No evidence of OR:

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):

Copyvio detector's coming in at 33% but it's just repetition of "Plan of Saint Gall" etc:

3. It is broad in its scope

a (major aspects)

It's not my period, but I would say it seems very much to focus on the late twentieth century study of the Plan. Given its historic importance as the only major architectural drawing for a 700-year period, did it receive no earlier coverage? Did nobody notice it in the 19th century, or earlier?

b (focused):

It stays focussed on the topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy

It is Neutral:

5. It is stable

All stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

Nice illustrations which seem legit.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Captions fine:

7. Overall:

First, a huge apology for the time it's taken me to do this. I should not have signed up to it before my leave, and work's been busy both prior and subsequently. I'm very sorry for the delay. I hope the above comments are helpful and do ping me with any queries. Take as long as you like to consider/respond, I'm hardly in a position to complain! It's a very nice article. KJP1 (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Pass/Fail:

[reply]

@KJP1: I don't think Kiwicee is going to be editing this article so you might have to fail it. HawkAussie (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HawkAussie - Maybe, but I did take a hell of a time myself to complete the review, so I'm quite happy to give them similar latitude. I'll drop them a note. KJP1 (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique, Kiwicee - Usernameunique, really appreciate the input and I'm sure Kiwicee will too. It could really Pass as it stands now, except perhaps for the absence of sourcing in the Models section. Kiwicee's tied up with university work at present, so I think I'll leave it open to give them time to address that, and also the Coverage gap. KJP1 (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique, KJP1 - Thank you so much for all this! I am so sorry I haven't reply before. I am currently working on a dissertation so I haven't got much time to review all of your suggestions. However, if you don't mind to leave it open, I would be very happy to do it when I finish the university work. Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwicee (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking BlueMoonset's point over at Battersea Town Hall, and with huge thanks to Usernameunique, I'm going to pass this. There are bits that could be further improved, but I think it meets the GA criteria as it stands. Congrat.s to the main author. KJP1 (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]