Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Norton Priory/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norton Priory

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because since it was accepted as a GA it has been expanded with the findings of the excavations in the 1970s and since, and is now as comprehensive as I can make it. I have recently asked for comments from experts in the subject, and these have been taken into consideration; also it has had a copyedit, and more photographs have been added. I look forward to a review of the whole article, with the aim of submitting it as a FAC.

Thanks, Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The status of alt text for images is presently in a bit of flux, but I'm sure it will at some point in the near future be restored to the MoS, and hence the FA criteria. With that in mind, something I forgot to mention when I looked at the article earlier is that the {{Infobox monastery}} template needs to be updated to display the alt text for the image in the lead. Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments This certainly seems comprehensive, and it's professionally written and nicely illustrated. I enjoyed reading about this fascinating place. I found unusually few things to say about an article this long; that's good. Here they are, none requiring complicated fixes.

Priory

  • "This was the only practical site where the Mersey could be crossed between Warrington and Birkenhead, and Brown and Howard-Davis considered it likely that the canons cared for travellers and pilgrims crossing the river." - Since this is the first mention of Brown and Howard-Davis, would it be helpful to readers to include their first names and a brief description such as "historians"? Also, would present tense be better for references to published works; e.g., "consider it likely"? And in the next sentence, "They also speculate... "? I think this would help keep the time of the writing (present, more-or-less) distinct from the time of the history being written about. Ditto for "The authors of the Victoria County History suggested... " a few sentences later. I think "suggest" would be more clear. Ditto for similar constructions in the article. Ah, I see later that you have used present tense here: "In addition to orchards and herb gardens in the moated enclosures, Brown and Howard-Davis are of the opinion that it is likely that beehives... ". So maybe it will not be a big problem to change the others.
  • Added first names and descriptions for the authors. Not sure about the tense; please see comments below.
  • "Nothing remains today of the site of the original priory in Runcorn." - Delete "today" as unneeded?
  • Done.
  • "A serious fire in 1236 destroyed the timber-built kitchen and damaged the west range of the monastic buildings and the roof of the church." - Delete "serious"? It's clear from the rest of the sentence that it was serious.
  • Done.
  • "Brown and Howard-Davis estimated that the original community would have consisted of 12 canons and the prior... ". - Link canon on first use?
  • Already linked earlier.

Abbey

  • "Initially the abbey was undervalued so that it could classified as a minor monastery... " - Missing word, "be"?
  • Fixed.

Country house

  • "At some time between 1727 and 1757 the Tudor house was demolished and replaced by a new house in Georgian style." - Delete "At some time"?
  • "The ground floor of the west wing retained the former vaulted undercroft of the west range of the medieval abbey," - Wikilink undercroft on first use?
  • "Greene was of the opinion that it probably formed the entrance from the west cloister walk into the nave of the church." - Wikilink nave on first use?
  • "Greene was of the opinion that it probably formed the entrance from the west cloister walk into the nave of the church." - I think this is the first mention of Greene in the article. If so, it should be J. Patrick Greene here rather than later. This sort of link re-ordering often happens in my articles when I move things around or add material at widely differing times.
  • "It was decided to create a museum on the site... ". - Who decided?
  • All done/fixed.

Artifacts from the buildings

  • "The excavations revealed an area of tiles of about 80 square metres... " - Conversion: 80 square metres (860 sq ft)?
  • Consider linking trefoil?
  • Both done.

Artifacts from daily life

  • "including 10 pfennig piece from Germany dated 1901" - Should this be "a 10-pfennig piece" or "10 pfennig pieces"?
  • n-dash added (or should it be a hyphen?).

Grounds

  • "and a sculpture tail has been designed in conjunction with these" - What is a "sculpture tail"?
  • Whoops, missing "r" -> trail

Walled gardens

  • "It is Grade II listed building." - Missing word, "a"?
  • "programmes aimed towards the community" - "Aimed" is used in the same way three times in this section. Maybe "meant for" or some other word or phrase could be substituted for variety.
  • "Since its opening, the museum has won awards for its work in a number of different categories, including tourism, education, outreach and gardening." - Tighten to "Since its opening, the museum has won awards for its work in tourism, education, outreach, and gardening'?
  • All fixed.

Bibliography

  • It might be helpful to add the OCLC numbers for books with no ISBN. You can find these via WorldCat.
  • Two fixed, but could not find anything for Starkey.

Images

  • Nicely illustrated.
  • File:Norton Priory Loggia.jpg needs more detail (who, what, where, when) in the Summary part of its page on the Commons. I'd suggest adding more details to the some of the others too; e.g., city, county, country.
  • Details added to all images on Commons.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog at WP:PR. As you can see from a glance at the backlog, we are always running a bit behind. Finetooth (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had given thought to the tense of the comments/opinions. All the authors of these comments are still alive (I hope) but I expect the article to outlive the authors. Also these were their opinions when they wrote; they may change (may have changed) their minds; new evidence may be found to lead them to change their opinions, etc. The present tense may read better; the past tense is certainly accurate. What do you think? (Whatever the agreement, I must make them consistent throughout.)--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I lean toward present tense because by custom it refers to the eternal present of the published document; e.g. "Arfley in his masterwork, Botox or Smallpox, says of Shakespeare's landscape imagery... ". I think it sometimes makes more sense in context to use the past tense; e.g., "Arfley disapproved of Trollope's love of heavy artillery, but Hotfoot thought it wonderful". So, I hedge on this. You're on your own. :-) Finetooth (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone for custom rather than "accuracy" and will wait to see what the FA reviewers think. I have changed all the "past" to "present" and hope I have not missed any. If all the matters raised have now been dealt with, it is time to close the review?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Norton_Priory/archive1&oldid=359229041"