Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Old St Paul's Cathedral/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:41, 20 October 2010 [1].

Old St Paul's Cathedral

[edit]

Old St Paul's Cathedral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Bob talk 18:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article I started in 2007 about the lost medieval cathedral of the City of London. It was listed as a Good Article in 2007, and expanded again in 2009 for a GA reassessment. I have recently been working on trying to get it up to the FA standard, with regards to referencing and so forth. It was recently given a peer review, where it was also looked over by Wikiproject:Architecture, and has been given a copyedit by the league of copyeditors. Bob talk 18:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I'm going to have to withdraw this candidacy. After pretty much being accused of plagiarism, inaccuracy and inconsistency, I've lost interest in even attempting to sort it out. Oh well, thanks to those editors who were complementary of my efforts. If anyone has the £74 book about the cathedral from 2004 in their possession, please feel free to make it into a much better article. Bob talk 00:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I couldn't find an archive of this page or a new equivalent, so have changed the reference to a book cite. Bob talk 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 23:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Comment. I'll add notes here as I go through the article; I don't think I'll have time to finish tonight.
    • A couple of infelicities in the lead: "work was delayed in another fire" -- surely you mean "by another fire"? And I think "At its peak" is an odd phrase to use in the context in which you have it; shouldn't this be something like "when completed"? "In addition to its purpose as the mother church": could this be shortened to "In addition to serving as"? And is "mother church" a standard way of referring to the cathedral church of a diocese? If so, it's fine, but I haven't seen the usage before and it sounds a little informal.
      • I've changed a few of these. I've kept "at its peak", because it refers to the period at about 1400 when it had a huge spire and before many of the interior furnishings were destroyed at the Reformation. I think the term "completion" may be a little ambiguous, due to later additions like Inigo Jones's weird classical porch. Would "seat" be better than "mother church"? I was avoiding "Diocesean" as it would repeat the reference to the "Diocese of London"
        I think "at its peak" is just confusing; I see what you mean but it implies a trajectory of growth and diminishment which I don't think the reader grasps at this early point in the article. Could we just take what you said and give it literally: "Between 1400 and the Reformation"? Or whatever precision in dates is warranted by the sources? Re "mother church", yes, I think "seat" is better. I don't particularly like "purpose", which is why I suggested "serving as", but if you don't like it I won't argue. Mike Christie (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The composite picture is a beautiful piece of work, but I wonder about the encyclopedic value. I think it might help the reader if you were to clarify that this is not intended to demonstrate how the cathedral would look (or would have looked) in the London skyline. Perhaps change the caption to say "...composited with a modern city background", which makes it clearer that this is not a representation of London?
      • I have to agree it's perhaps a bit, um, original research, but I was just trying to make it seem a bit more "real" than the old black-and-white engravings. (I get a bit bored with everyone saying Wren's cathedral is so great- this gothic one was much better![citation needed])
        I think it's probably OK, though others may differ, but I would like to add that "modern city background" if you're OK with that. Mike Christie (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does the infobox say "Londinium"? And does it need to repeat the word Diocese against the Diocese line? Could we just make that "Diocese: London", with "London" linking to "Diocese of London"?
      • Changed.
    • I think it would be good to have the date (1916) in the caption to the engraving that starts the first section; a reader will naturally wonder if the engraving is contemporary.
      • Changed.
    • I checked the first reference to Milman on Google Books, and the page number disagrees; I think it should be p. 23, not 21. It looks like the same edition. Can you check this? I also think "bequeathed" is the wrong word here; when Milman says it may have been the Conqueror's last act I don't think we can assume he means the stone was willed. If I don't misunderstand him, Milman is also saying it's not clear that it was William who gave the stone -- if that's right, the article should reflect that uncertainty. Although I just noticed that William isn't linked and you don't say which it is! So maybe you are hedging. Either way I think this should be clearer. P.S. I just noticed that Benham (p.3) is not ambiguous about this; it's not a bequest, and it is definitely William I.
    • I just checked the first Benham cite and the page number isn't quite right; you need pages 3 and 4, not just 4 -- page 3 is the one that mentions Maurice. Can you check the other cites and make sure they're accurate? It's a bit concerning to find the first two incorrect (though this one is admittedly only slightly wrong).
      • I think what's happened here is that I've been using the Gutenberg HTML version of Benham's text, which puts the page number in the middle of the paragraph, but looks like 4 instead of 3-4. Bob talk 23:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, that makes sense. I would suggest you change them to use the page numbers visible in Google Books, though; that's the actual page image and if Gutenberg doesn't match it I don't think those numbers are usable. Mike Christie (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a look at what you're sourcing from Benham p.4 and there is a mistake there: Henry didn't grant tithes of the fish; he granted all the fish and a tithe of the venison. Same paragraph, separate point: can you get rid of one of those "also"s?
      • I'm not sure this is really a mistake, as Henry didn't physically give him the fish, but the rights to them (i.e. anybody catching one would have to pay him), which is essentially the same as a tithe (presumably fish are slightly different to deer, in that they're not enclosed). I was also just trying to mention some of the ways Henry assisted, rather than a detailed breakdown of finances. Anyway, I've made this into one (rather long) sentence now, to remove the "also". Bob talk 07:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The statement that the cathedral is the fourth church on that site is cited to Milman, but I can't find it there; can you confirm?
--More as I have time. Mike Christie (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have switched to Oppose above. I'm still only a couple of paragraphs into a detailed review, and I'm concerned that there are just too many places where the material drawn from the source has been inaccurately rephrased. (There's one case at least where it's barely rephrased at all, and I've asked a question about that at WT:FAC, but that's not the problem I'm talking about here.) For example, Benham says that Fulk Basset's appeal was because "the church had in time past been so shattered by tempests that the roof was dangerous"; the article says that the roof had been damaged by "a series of storms", which implies a recent connected series of storms leading to the appeal. I don't think we can say that. Again, Benham says that the builders, working on the partially completed cathedral after a delay of some time, would continue in whatever the current style of architecture was, removing some heavy Norman pillars and replacing them with Early English clustered pillars, though it appears that Norman pillars that were still firm were left untouched. In the article this has become "During this period, the style of the building transitioned from heavy Romanesque into Early English Gothic. Although the base Norman columns were left alone ..." I am not sure if Romanesque is a reasonable usage for Norman, as I know little about architecture, so I'll let that go, but I think Benham's sense has changed somewhat here -- not all Norman pillars were left alone: some were replaced and some were not. (Benham adds that in fact the clustered pillars encased the Norman ones rather than replaced them, and says that this was demonstrated by Christopher Wren, an interesting tidbit I'd suggest adding, by the way.) There was at least one more example that I pointed out above that has been corrected; and there's another above that I added a few minutes ago for which I can't find the information at all in the source. All of this was in the first three paragraphs of the first section. Plus, it appears that the page numbers are to the Gutenberg version rather than the book itself; that makes source checking harder for anyone using the book. Sorry to oppose, and I'll revisit if asked, but before I do please assure me that the sources really do support the text in the article with the page cited. It does like look a good (and entertaining) article, and I don't think these are fatal problems, but they need to be fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Norman architecture; it is the traditional local name in England for Romanesque architecture, so that at least is not a worry. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little bit miffed about this oppose - on one hand, you're implying that I've plagiarised a source, on the other hand you're saying it's not close enough to the source material and are complaining when I've completely rephrased it - you can't really have it both ways. I'm also not sure why you're opposing several sentences - for example, a tempest is a storm, this is just Benham's slightly flowery, high Victorian style. And as Johnbod's noted, "Romanesque" is the correct, recognised term for Norman architecture. If you look at the engraving of the nave, you can see the lancet arches over the rounded Norman columns. Bob talk 07:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not accusing you of plagiarism -- I don't like using that word for this situation because it implies an intent to deceive, which is clearly not the case here. I also take your point that it's annoying when I complain about a rephrase and then complain about a direct quote; but I think the answer is that you either need to rephrase in a way that doesn't change the meaning in any important way, or else use a direct quote if nothing else will do. (OK on "Romanesque"; I suspected that was just my ignorance.) Re tempest; I think Benham's admittedly flowery style just means that over the years, storms had damaged the roof. "A series of storms" is a change in meaning: small, but not there in the source. If that sentence were the only issue I would not be opposing; my concern is that I've found multiple small issues in a very short sequence in the article. Sorry if the oppose is annoying; I would like to support because I like the article and think the subject is well worth an FA, but I am a bit concerned by what I've seen so far. Mike Christie (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should also add that it's a really nice article and I'm enjoying reading it! I didn't mean to leave you only with a grumpy point about formatting. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! One question - I originally wrote this as "St. Paul's", but it was changed when it was a DYK to "St Paul's". However, I notice the FA on St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery has the period. Looking at GA church articles, we even have St. Mary's Church, Chesham next to St Mary's Church, Nantwich. Is there a right or wrong way? I notice there's this, but it doesn't seem very conclusive. I'd rather check before going through changing it one way or the other. Bob talk 22:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are different rules depending on which standard you're following. There's some information at Abbreviation. Personally I avoid periods so at least that way I'm being consistent, and I notice the St Paul's website does the same. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS says you can do it either way, though it does say that dropping periods is the more common BrEng style. Mike Christie (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone for the dropped periods, except where the original work uses it. Also sorted the periods in the citations. Bob talk 23:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another niggle. With your shortened refs, sometimes you use period, sometimes comma. The usual thing is Smith, 2010, p. 1. Or Smith, p. 1. Or maybe Smith, 1 (though I'm not keen on that), or Smith: 1. But I have never seen Smith. 1. Perhaps you should check that that's a recognized style, but it needs to be consistent throughout, whichever you choose. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit confused what you meant, changed them back now. Bob talk 07:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1c: SELF: Cummings, E. M. (1867). Please explain why we should accept a self-published work as a high quality reliable source? Comments 2c: "Hibbert,C; Weinreb,D; Keay,J,." "(rev 1993,2008)" spacing and punctuation issues throughout citations. Dugdale, William (1658): extraneous right parenthesis. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Ostovich 2001 is miscited. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
E.M. Cummings was the dean's verger, so he's a reliable source. [2] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck oppose, accepting expertise argument. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dugdale sorted, the London Encyclopedia ref is replaced by Benham. I'm not quite sure what's wrong with the Ostovich citation. Would you be able to elaborate, or perhaps correct it, please? Bob talk 07:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have "Ostovich, Helen (ed.) (2001). Every Man Out of His Humour by Ben Jonson. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719015588." However, Worldcat, and a cursory examination of the featured image at Worldcat indicate that it is: "Jonson, Ben (2001). Every Man Out of His Humour Helen Ostovich (ed.). The revels plays [series]. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719015588." May even have a series editor. Unless you're citing Ostovich's scholarly introduction, in which case you're citing "Ostovich, Helen (2001). "Introduction." In Every Man Out Of His Humour Ben Jonson (author); Helen Ostovich (editor)..." or " Ostovich, Helen (2001). Annotations to Every Man Out Of His Humour Ben Jonson (author); Helen Ostovich (editor)..." Fifelfoo (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed this now. Bob talk 19:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 11 (Huelin) needs page numbers.
    • I never used Huelin's book as a reference, that was derived from the Paul's Walk article, and unfortunately no page number was given by the editor.
  • Consistency in the ref formatting - you mostly do books as "Author (year publication) Title Location:publisher" but some (including current ref 11) do "Author Title Location:publisher, year of pub". Please standardize.
  • Jones ref - the isbn as given doesn't work with World Cat, can we double check it please? It's a reprint of an 1880 work, what makes this a reliable source? It should also note the original publication date.

It works with Google: http://books.google.com/books?as_isbn=9781103109425. I gather William Jones was a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London, so would seem to be a reliable source. I think he's only quoting the earlier Dugdale book, anyway, which I haven't been able to find. I've linked to the Worldcat entry for the 1880 print after the ISBN.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Ealdgyth, unfortunately, I don't have access to the 2004 book through a library (I live sortof in the middle of nowhere), and no longer have access to a university Athens login either, so I haven't been able to consult journals and so forth either. Is there anything in those that I have missed or that is a massive ommission? (I know recent scholarship is preferable to older works, but it's all a matter of access/cost, etc). The two web citations aren't citing anything particularly controversial, really, merely saying that's where Donne's tomb can still be seen - I will replace it with [3] I think. The other website seems to be a reasonably reliable art website (?), as far as I can see. Bob talk 20:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bob, not every source listed as a short ref is listed again in citations. For example, these appear in footnotes but not in bibliography. Is that deliberate?
  • Huelin, G. Vanished Churches of the City of London. London: Guildhall Library Publishing, 1996. ISBN 0900422424
  • Reynolds, H. (1922). The Churches of the City of London. London: Bodley Head.
Also, you need to decide on a consistent way to write them. Year in brackets or at the end. Both are fine, but you can't mix and match. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm a little bit busy elsewhere tonight, so I might not be able to correct all of the above points until tomorrow. To answer a few questions, what I think has happened with some references is that bits and pieces have been added with a different style either by different editors, or perhaps when references from related articles have been used (i.e the Paul's Walk article). I'll have another look into those later. Bob talk 20:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've hopefully managed to make these consistant now. I've had to lose a few, unfortunately, as I didn't have the page number. Bob talk 19:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nice, readable article which I think covers the topic very well. Just a few comments.

  • "It was begun by the Normans following a devastating fire in 1087 which destroyed much of the city." Minor point, but this reads like the actual building was built by some people called Normans. How about "Work began during the Normal period, following a devastating..."
    • Changed to mention reign of William I.
  • Similarly, I doubt Bishop Maurice did the building work, so could "Bishop Maurice began the building" be rephrased?
    • Rephrased.
  • "Beaumis was assisted by King Henry I, who gave the bishop stone and commanded that all material brought up the River Fleet for the cathedral should be free from toll, as well as rights to fish caught within the cathedral neighbourhood and tithes on venison taken in the County of Essex to fund the cathedral." Slightly long sentence, which makes the end confusing. I assume the rights on fish and venison funded the cathedral? It is not clear if this is what was happening.
    • Clarified.
  • "During this period, the style of the building transitioned ..." Is transitioned a verb?
  • "The cathedral had one of Europe's tallest spires": Could it be compared to others? I.e. was it the tallest, 2nd tallest, etc. Or how does it compare to the tallest?
    • Mentioned Lincoln, which was taller until 1549. Interestingly, as Lincoln was only completed in 1319 and the spire at St Paul's lasted until 1561, so presumably for a few years, it was the tallest building in the world.
  • "The finished cathedral of the Middle Ages was renowned for its interior beauty." I think this needs more than a comment from 1902 to justify it. Are there any contemporary opinions?
    • The Chaucer and St Erkenwald hint at this. This line is more of an introduction to aspects of the interior - shrines, windows, etc.
      • Hmm. I'm not sure there is enough there to justify "renowned for its beauty". Renowned by who? Really, there should be more than hints, it should have a contemporary opinion saying how beautiful it was, or reporting how much everyone loved it. And if it is an introduction, what follows should have more opinions in it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nave's immense length was particularly notable..." To whom?
    • Longest in the world, called "Paul's Walk", a notable meeting place for London.
  • "The cathedral's stained glass was reputed to be the best in the country..." Again, who held the opinion? (Rose window covered by Chaucer, but not this part)
  • "nothing liker Babel": Forgive the silly question, but I assume this is how it is written in Microcosmographie? (Had to check!)
    • I wondered about this - this is accurate, but I have to admit, I don't know what he means. This is correct, although it makes a lot more sense in the full context, which I've added to the article, now. Thanks. It's quite an interesting little portrait. Bob talk 21:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the then bishop of London Edmund Grindal" Don't think "then" is necessary, as it can be assumed he was bishop at the time.

I will have another look later, but will be happy to support when these points are checked. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Is the building gothic or Gothic?
  • "At its completion in middle of the 14th century" - grammar
  • Paul's walk or Walk?
  • Beamis or Beaumis?
  • "To fund the cathedral, Henry gave Beamis rights to all fish caught within the cathedral neighbourhood and tithes on venison taken in the County of Essex. Beaumis also gave a site for the original foundation of St Paul's School" - second sentence is awkwardly phrased, and was it Beaumis or Henry who gave the site?
  • St Faith or Faith's?
  • What is "the Jesus chapel"?
  • The "New Work" or "The New Work"?
  • "1916 engraving representing Old St Paul's" - not possible, as the source for this image was published in 1913 (according to image description page)
  • Paul's Cross or St. Paul's Cross?
  • Specify "Elizabeth I" (as you do for other monarchs)
  • Be more consistent in when you use cathedral vs Cathedral - seems a bit arbitrary at the moment
  • Why do you use both <blockquote> and {{quote}}? Also, don't use either for quotes of less than about 3-4 lines
  • "by demolishing a familiar landmark without being able to see..." - phrasing
  • "demolition of the remains of the old cathedral began in 1668. Demolition of the Old Cathedral" - repetitive and inconsistent in capitalization
  • "Wren initially used the then-new technique of using gunpowder" - repetitive
  • Second-last paragraph and last 2 images are tangential to this article and could be removed
  • van Eck is out of alphabetical order
  • Use ndashes for page ranges consistently
  • Check titles for refs 11 and 29
  • Ref 17: date?
  • Why is Jonson & Ostovich called Ostovich in footnotes?
  • Ref 50: page(s)?
  • Missing publication details for Downes
  • Oggins, Huelin, Harbens, Cook and Kerry are in Bibliography but not in footnotes - perhaps create a Further reading section? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Old_St_Paul%27s_Cathedral/archive1&oldid=1048167242"