This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Very pleased to pick this one up. It looks interesting. I'll work on it over the next few days and ping you when I'm done. I tend to make comments as I work through the article, and then summarise the position at the end. Here's an example of the approach. You're welcome either to wait, or to respond to the comments piecemeal, as suits you best. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've not used one. They are completely optional, but depressingly controversial. You may want to consider it, if you've not already. Something like, "Infobox - artifact", used here, would fit the bill.
“The Ranworth Rood Screen at St Helen’s Church, Ranworth, Norfolk” - super picky but the link to Church of St Helen, Ranworth doesn’t let me link to the village. Neither does the church article. Personally, I’d go for Church of St Helen, Ranworth, Norfolk.
“one of the finest examples of a medieval rood screen” - one of the problems with superlatives is that they are prone to challenge, and to slapping with a [citation needed] tag. A solution, and one of the rare occasions where I’d go with a cite in the lead, is to use a direct quote. Historic England calls it “one of England’s finest painted screens” which might do. Incidentally, you’ve not used the HE entry for the church, and I think it has some good stuff.Historic England. "Church of St Helen, Ranworth (Grade I) (1154645)". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 29 December 2023.
And a rood screen is....? - while I appreciate we have the bluelink, I do think a line or two, early on and perhaps immediately following the single-sentence opening para., saying what a rood screen is, would be of assistance to the reader. Something like; a partition dividing the chancel from the nave / often with a loft above, and sometimes a Christ figure above that / a common feature of medieval churches / typically of wood, sometimes stone, iron in 19th century revivals / often decorated/painted with images of saints / something about its symbolic role as clergy/laity separator. That sort of thing.
Last clause, 2nd para. - This left me a bit confused, on a couple of levels. First, some of the language is a bit archaic/technical, particularly, "women came to the altar to be churched" and "postpartum confinement". Could it be simplified; perhaps something like - "during the Middle Ages, women who had recently given birth came to the altar to be blessed, signifying thanks for their survival and their return from their period of lying-in." The links would work, although I think the Lying-in link, to the specific European tradition, may be more useful. Secondly, I'm not quite getting the connection between the first clause and this. Is the suggestion that women came to that specific part of the screen to be blessed - i.e. it had a particular significance for women, and was correspondingly decorated with images of the Virgin and female saints? I think that's what is suggested in the expanded section covering Eamon Duffy's view. Could it be made a little clearer here.
Partially Done I implemented the prose in, but as I'm not familiar with the subject matter and am a passerby editor just making edits here and there, I'll leave it to the prime nominator. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“is relatively well-preserved, but the parapet above…” - not sure the word parapet, or its link, is the best here. Isn’t “loft” the more common term? I appreciate there’s no link, but parapet doesn’t seem quite right.
It was (and I think still is) possible to walk along the top of the rood screen, and so 'parapet' may be correct in this case. It is the word used by some sources, but I'll check again in case others use another term. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"a group of East Anglian parish churches with medieval panels related to those at Ranworth" - do the sources allow for expansion on the nature of the "relationship", both here and in the body? Is the suggestion simply that they were contemporaneous? Or that they were undertaken by the same/linked craftsmen/artists? Or that the Ranworth screen influenced the others stylistically? Or something else?
"Norfolk has the greatest number of surviving late-medieval religious figurative screens, or panels from screens in England, with almost 100 examples." - Commas are not my strong point, but are we sure their placing here is right? Should there be one after "panels from screens,"?
"the rood screen at the Church of St Helen, Ranworth, in the English county of Norfolk," - I know the body reproduces the content of the lead, but the repetition of the full name/geographic location here reads rather oddly to me, especially as Norfolk is referenced in the previous sentence. Perhaps - "the rood screen at St Helen's, Ranworth, ..."?
"the screen has been dated to c. 1479–1480" - do we know the dating methodology? I'm assuming Dendrochronology, which is referenced at the very end, in the Ranworth group of rood screens section. Could we say something about that here? As an aside, I don't think the article anywhere mentions the construction material. I agree it's obviously wood, but should it be mentioned?
Depth - I initially struggled to understand that the screen has depth, as well as height/width, i.e. it's a rectangular box, rather than a flat screen. Neither the main image, nor the diagram, quite convey this for me, so I think we need some words. It's what you're getting at, I think, in the discussion of the nave altars. You also note the rarity of such designs, which is another reason to expand upon it, as far as the sources allow.
"Probably the best known rood screen in England, and was considered by the British architectural critic Nikolaus Pevsner to be “the finest surviving screen arrangement surviving in Norfolk.”" - this sentence doesn't quite work. Perhaps - "Probably the best known rood screen in England, the architectural historian Nikolaus Pevsner considered it, “the finest surviving screen arrangement surviving in Norfolk”." Also on this sentence; I think Pevsner was more a historian than a critic; I'm not sure it's necessary, or entirely accurate, to describe him as "British"; and did he really use "surviving" twice in four words? My Pevsners aren't currently accessible, but it seems a, rare, instance of clumsy prose.
First two para.s "a young-looking archbishop saint" - Here, I got rather confused regarding Image 2, A young archbishop. We start on this in the first para., and then jump back to it in the second-fourth sentences of the second para., with St George being discussed in the middle. First, could it be re-ordered to address this. And secondly, I can't make sense of the timeline. The first para. says the young archbish was "over-painted" - does this mean it was painted over to represent the archbish, i.e. it originally depicted St John, or that the archbish was the original image, subsequently painted over to represent St John? And the second para. says "once obscured the original St. John panel", but which was the original, Image 2 or Image 3? I can't make a suggestion, as I can't get my head around what the sources are saying likely happened. Is it possible to clarify it?
"Cornelius Jansen Walter Winter" - Who he, Ed? I learn he was a, not very successful, Suffolk painter (dates 1817-91). Could he be introduced, and does the source allow anything more to be said about his "discovery" of the dragon? Was it previously obscured, like John the Baptist, but by dirt, or varnish? Presumably, Winter was producing illustrations of the saints. This source, [1], has his self-description as an "antiquarian draughtsman". I've read the Morant/L'Estrange source and I fear there's going to be little/nothing to add, unless any of the other sources also touch on it.
"The saints depicted in the central rood screen are the 12 Apostles, in the order of:" - the prose order doesn't seem to match the order in the diagram. The first runs: St Simon, St Thomas, St Bartholomew, St James, St Andrew, St Peter, St Paul, Saint John, St Philip, St James the Less, St Jude, St Matthew. But the diagram runs: St Peter, St Andrew, St James, St Bartholomew, St Thomas, St Simon, St Paul, St John, St Philip, St James the Less, St Jude, St Matthew. That is, the right hand side matches up, but the left appears not to.
"The Lady Altar (also referred to as the Lady Chapel) is dedicated to Virgin Mary" - "The Lady Altar (also referred to as the Lady Chapel) is dedicated to the Virgin Mary"?
"Virgin Mary is shown with the infant Jesus on her lap as she breastfeeds him, an image that symbolised the spiritual nourishment given to worshippers by Christ." - does this need a specific citation, or does Source 19 at the end of the para. cover it?
"Worshippers regarded the depicted saints as talented in their own way" - not sure I get what this is trying to say. That they possessed "special/super powers"? That they had virtues/attributes which made them relevant in particular circumstances, e.g. Patron Saints of travellers/lost things/childbirth?
Harriet Gunn and her sister Hannah visited Ranworth church four times in April 1839, at a time when few knew of its existence - Few knew of the existence of the church? What about the parishioners? Is it that few knew of the rood screen? Surely, even that's debatable?
"medieval panels related to those at Ranworth" - see comment in Lead section. Is there anything more to be gleaned from the sources as to the nature of the relation between the screens? For example, can Plummer's suggestion be expanded. "two generations" of the same family/artistic group?
Y I have expanded this section as far as I think is possible for this article. Plummer's proposal has gone, as there is no general agreement about it. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notes and References
All fine.
Sources
Publisher locations - we have a mix, in that some have them, e.g. Pevsner, and some don't, e.g. Duffy. I think we need to be consistent. Personally, I prefer to have them. Duffy would be New Haven and London.
Book bluelinks - another bone of contention. I like them, some editors don't. My personal preference is against Google links, unless they give useful snippets, since I was told off for promoting Google's commercial sales. I therefore use Worldcat, which, for example, would give you this, [2], for Duffy.
Historic England listing - as referenced in the Lead section, I think you could use this, both for Comprehensiveness, and for the material it has. In particular, I think the "One of England's finest painted screens" quote is too good to leave out, coming as it does from the heritage listing body.
The late User:Brianboulton, the most indefatigable of FAC Source reviewers, once questioned the purpose of such sections, on the grounds that, if they had anything useful in them, they should be used in the main article. For example, and assuming you can access it, is there nothing in the Plummer/Whittingham and Wrapson would couldn't be used to expand on the rood screen group relationship issue?
N Section not removed. We seem to have wandered away from the GA criteria here, unless i am mistaken. The sources I have listed imo should be recommended to readers. Hart is interesting, but is too old to use as a source for the article; Plummer is not currently accessible to me—I will place it in the talk page instead of here, as it will certainly contain useful information. I will try to access Wrapson. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also
See also - you don't have a See also section. I wonder if there should be one, to cover:
Diagram - I like this. A minor point, and working on the assumption you can amend it, but would the numbering of the images flow better in a strictly Left to Right/North to South order? That would mean renumbering the current "24/25/26" as "20/21/22" and the current "20/21/22/23" as "23/24/25/26". That would follow the order at the North end.
Gallery? - Personally, I like these, and I think there are some good Commons images (mostly/all yours!) which could be included. I particularly like ones such as Rood Screen 3.JPG, which gives a sense of the screen's depth. Just a thought, no deal-breaker for GAN.
N I'd rather not include a gallery here, as I believe images should be used only to illustrate the text (see WP:IG for where i am coming from), and the links to other sites have some excellent images of the panels. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is of a high standard. I've noted in the second bullet of Description - Screen the only instance where I think a spot of re-drafting is needed.
It's unfortunate that most of the papers are padlocked, but there's nothing the nominator can do about that. Nevertheless, I've checked every source that is freely accessible and they're all fine. I've flagged a query regarding the Pevsner quote, which I can't currently check myself.
The Sources are fine, covering a range from the 19th to 21st centuries. I've indicated the one area where I think an additional source could be used, the HE listing for the church. I've also flagged a point re. the Further reading section for the nominator to consider.
All good. Have made suggestions re. a Gallery and alt-text but neither are criteria requirements.
Overall:
Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
OK - I'm done, and will put it On Hold. Have a look and see what you think. Ping me if there are any queries, or if you need longer than the standard seven days. KJP1 (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And pleased to Pass. Thank you for the article, which was a very interesting read. I'm fond of rood screens. If you ever get the chance, and haven't been, the one at St Issui's Church, Partrishow is considered the best Welsh example. And thanks also for the prompt and comprehensive response to the review. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done (but I'm not sure it improves the article).Amitchell125 (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I would rather keep the books links as I have always done them. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
are unassessed)