Jump to content

Talk:Garde Church/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 20:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Opening statement

[edit]

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed, plus Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or minus Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this article On-Hold until Lye Church's review is completed :). –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yakikaki: Made my full and complete review :) –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]
  • The oldest part is the nave and the base of the tower, while the youngest part is the large chancel. "Youngest" is not how I would describe age in an inanimate object.
 Fixed Changed to "most recently constructed". Yakikaki (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The church contains wall paintings from c. 1200 in Russo-Byzantine style, almost unique in Sweden. How is something "almost unique"?
 Fixed I changed it to "unique" only. There are a few fragments of other Russo-Byzantine paintings in one or two other churches on Gotland, that's why I wanted to qualify it. But reflecting on it, I think for all intents and purposes, the murals in Garde can reasonably be described as unique. Yakikaki (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • built, probably Everything highlighted here after "built" can be removed without loss in quality.
minus Removed Yakikaki (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • lychgates or entrances Link lychgates again and axe "or entrances".
minus Removed Yakikaki (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main entrance Main gate, following the previous bullet-point.
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two storeys above have been used as a granary for storing the church tithe for a long time. The last time the lychgate was used as a granary was in 1917. Combine and reduce.
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider: "used as a granary for storing the church tithe until 1917". –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed What about this solution? The last time it was used as a granary, it was not used to store the tithe, you see. Just as a random granary. Yakikaki (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oic –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lychgate, one of the largest medieval lychgates in Sweden, probably dates from the first half of the 13th century. Move to the beginning of the description of this lychgate, combine with the first sentence, and reduce.
 Fixed Hopefully it's a bit better now? Yakikaki (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The present church at Lye
 Fixed My head is full of churches at the moment... Yakikaki (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also possibly that the roof trusses of the present church originally comes from a presumed earlier wooden church. There are a couple grammar hiccups here.
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also possible that the roof trusses of the church comes from Change "comes from" to "came from".
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was probably built during the middle of the 12th century, perhaps begun around 1130. Just use the latter. It is better to be specifically vague than vaguely vague.
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The baptismal font and triumphal cross still in the church are from the time same time.
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Changed to "the same time" Yakikaki (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the" is used to start a sentence twice in a row in "History".
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the tower was heightened to its current height [...] the earlier chancel was also replaced by the current, disproportionately large chancel and sacristy. Delete the "also" here; the tower wasn't replaced. Replacing "heightened" with "raised" would also make the first part read better.
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably the intention "Probably" should be the third word here.
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • during which probably the last remaining medieval stained glass windows disappeared. They can't be remaining if they've disappeared.
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another renovation was done in 2004 Do you have anything to add to make this renovation stand out?
 Fixed Added a few words about it. Yakikaki (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire church is whitewashed, except the portals, the corners of the chancel, nave and tower, and the plinths of the tower and the chancel Axe "entire".
minus Removed Yakikaki (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • these are all of more carefully hewn limestone Missing a "the".
  • are simple, round arches Romanesque portals Consider "simple, round, Romanesque portals"
 Fixed I axed "round" since it's implied as they're Romanesque and also visible in the picture. Yakikaki (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • now vanished, first chancel Remove the comma here.
minus Removed Yakikaki (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • rebuilt during the 14th century Replace "during" with "in".
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The southern portal of the chancel is in contrast a decorated Gothic portal. Reword this.
 Fixed Settled for "The southern portal of the chancel is Gothic in style" Yakikaki (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The capitals are decorated with plant ornaments with faint traces of original paint;[17] once the entire portal was probably painted. Delete the text after the semicolon.
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wimperg above the portal A tympanum?
 Fixed Changed to tympanum. Yakikaki (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • also found e.g. in The "e.g." here is unnecessary.
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bell was according to an inscription upon it made Put in a comma before "was" and after "it".
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nave gets its light from highly placed, small windows Reword.
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • while the larger chancel gets its light from large Gothic windows in the eastern and southern walls. Consider "the large Gothic windows in".
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The floor of the church largely date from Should be "dates".
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • served as a church tabernacle, Remove "church", it's redundant.
minus Removed Yakikaki (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which also contains decorations from the 14th century inside. Remove "inside", ditto.
minus Removed Yakikaki (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No original stained glass remains in the church, though the chancel windows still contained medieval stained glass panes as late as the 1860s. Shorten.
 Fixed Shortened somewhat, what do you think? Yakikaki (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire nave was probably originally decorated with mural paintings. The majority of these are either entirely lost, or survive only in fragments on the walls of the nave. Shorten.
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are Russo-Byzantine in style, [...] They are almost unique in Sweden. ...Are there other examples in Sweden?
    • It has been suggested that there is a relationship with fragmentary paintings in Källunge and Havdhem churhes, but otherwise no comparative paintings exist in Sweden. Ah. Oh, and "comparative" should be "comparable".
 Fixed I removed the "unique" sentence since it's implied in the following text, as you note above. Yakikaki (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One set of murals are however still very well preserved, [...] They have never been covered and are recognised as being of high quality; Combine.
 Fixed Changed the whole paragraph a bit. Yakikaki (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • determine the origins of artist
  • Changed to "Several efforts have been made to identify from where the stylistic influences of these murals may come, and to speculate about the origins or identity of the artist who made them." It's longer but perhaps clearer? Yakikaki (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • an artist or workshop known by the notname Byzantios, who made several Romanesque baptismal fonts influenced by Byzantine art on Gotland. Seems there was more than one Orthodox-inspired artist active on Gotland. If this was common, it's worth bringing up in the discussion about the Russo-Byzantine mural.
  • Probably not; even Western art at this time was Byzantine-esque. But I cut out everything after Byzantios since it perhaps serves more to confuse than to elucidate here. There's a discussion about possible influences in the style of Byzantios at that wiki-page. Yakikaki (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably made around 1200 [...] probably from the 18th century Try a "likely" in the latter example here instead of "probably".
 Fixed Yakikaki (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lye Church is an
 Fixed –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA progress

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Garde_Church/GA1&oldid=949464505"