Talk:Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
|
||||
|
Click [show] for further details |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
A fact from Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 22 November 2007. |
 |
Contents |
[edit] Concerning grading
Observing that this article has been graded "low" as an Anglican project, I just checked out the rating scale, to see what qualified as a "low priority article" . What it said was:-
- While still notable, these are highly-specialised or even obscure, not essential for understanding the wider picture ("nice to have" articles) eg: Parish of the Falkland Islands.
My comment is as follows:-
No, the architecture of the great medieval cathedrals of England is not an "obscure" subject. And it isn't "highly specialised" either. This is an article about the major works of art produced by the Church in England (as against the Church of England) over a period of about 500 years. They are still serving their purpose. They are the most highly visible evidence of the presence of the church in England. They are loved, visited, studied. Thousands of British school children are taken to them, thousands of French school children traipse through Canterbury Cathedral alone every year because it is accessible from the Channel tunnel. That is the indication of the significance of these buildings.
The article has the same degree of importance as an article describing St Peter's Basilica, Rome would have. (I haven't checked it but it's probably rated high on the Architecture scale and also high on the religion scale).
Amandajm (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
All it does is put article in classes to better focus the project where work needs to be done. If it seems extereme, it is because I am the only person rating 1,500+ aritcles and people (including project editors) seem to think I have some sort of authority that I do not. This is wikipedia, join the project and be bold if you think a rating is off - you will get no arguement from me. I just overhauled our assessment page in an attempt to get more people involved. I am thrilled to see that this great article exists and was made GA so quickly, well done to all of you!!! It is going on our portal ASAP. Great work everyone!
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism#St. Luke's Church (Smithfield, Virginia). -- SECisek (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh I see that is now graded HIGH importance! Amanda, next time you fancy ruffling some feathers you might take a look at the architectural content of that one! Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article Review
Hello! I am Rudget, and will be carrying out this GA review. I have a fairly non-existent knowledge about Cathedrals and so I have a great position in which to read and assess this article. I will leave my comments in a few hours. On first looks, it reads great. Regards, Rudget.talk 16:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article Assessment
This is my assessment of the (current revision) article. Below the assessment are some tips that will help the page even further.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- (Even if was only started 2 days ago!)
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
Further examination of my findings:
- All images were suitable and were captioned appropriately
- I was initially concerned about the single-handed dedication by Amandajm to this article, but considering that other editors have had a change to edit the page and correct it appropriately, I decided the article was stable. Even considering it's two day history!
- I can find no evidence of Original Research.
- There were only a few grammar, spelling and reference position mistakes. But that's easily rectified.
- References that were provided were various , and were reliable.
[edit] Some things to do
Here's a list of things to do that helped pass the article, I would suggest doing these as to help the overall readability of the article. These problems weren't major enough (IMO) to not pass the article.
- There is a reliance on sources 1,2,3 (for example Source 2 is used 60 times.)
- Some punctuation mistakes
- Grammar mistakes (e.g leaving only intact it's spire - which should be changed to leaving only it's spire intact)
- One case of weasel words (eg. Despite this, it is one of the supreme masterpieces of Gothic, revealing the enormous diversity and imagination of English medieval architects.)
- Remove the section "architectural styles" (It's not needed, it's already wikilinked extensively in the article)
- Be sure to fix broken links (i.e Tracery in "decorated gothic section")
- Remove official websites mentioned in the individual mentions of cathedrals - they are not needed.
- Remove one or two small lists which may affect the readability.
[edit] Additional Comments
This is my first GA review and so I have had no such experience reviewing articles, but this is an outstanding reference to the medieval cathedrals in England, and I'm sure any GA reviewer would agree with me that this is a very good article, especially considering it's age. I am truly astounded by the hard work and effort put into this article, and I especially consider giving a good pat on the back to Amandajm. Well done. Rudget.talk 17:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comments on the comments
At the risk of seeming argumentative and ungrateful, I am responding to the comments of Rudget! Firstly, I am truly delighted! Secondly, to look at some of the comments:
- There is a reliance on sources 1,2,3 (for example Source 2 is used 60 times.)
-
-
-
- Four main references are used- 1,2,3 and 8. There are 143 references, with a reliance of four books of which three are most specific to the article, a few others, both specific and general and some monographs.
- No 3. Banister Fletcher, is the Bible of architectural history, and is a standard text on English Gothic in particular.
- The other three of these books contain orderly reviews of all the cathedrals, and were thus the ideal sources for the topic. John Harvey provides all the dates and measurements. AC-T contains "quotable quotes" because he writes in a poetic style. If one cannot say that the facade of Peterborough is a "supreme masterpiece" of Gothic architecture, one must quote Clifton-Taylor, in order to be able to give any sort of verbal "picture" or scale of architectural significance. Tatton-Brown and Crook is a 2002 book with lots of good info.
- What I could do is simply cut a lot of the references to CC-T, because he and JH both move through the buildings in a similar direction, so to speak. But in many paragraphs, I have combined info from both, or have used CC-T to support JH or BF. In other words, one could write in many cases JH says this and so does CC-T. If I simply remove 20 references to AC-T, there will still be 123 references but it will simply look more balanced.
-
-
- One case of weasel words (eg. Despite this, it is one of the supreme masterpieces of Gothic, revealing the enormous diversity and imagination of English medieval architects.)
-
- This problem again! In describing these, or any buildings, it is not enough to use a word like "famous" or "renowned" which both seem to be acceptable on wiki. The architectural writer seeks a) to describe the character and impression of the building, which is a different thing from saying that it is in the Early English style, and has three tall arches across a facade of 153 feet. This information may be true but tells the reader next to nothing. b) to create a scale of significance for the buildings eg:
- Ripon Cathedral has a nice, tidy, well-balanced, harmonious facade.***
- Wells, of the same period, has a magnicent, expansive, rich and highly three-dimensional facade.****
- But the facade of Peterbough is the "supreme masterpiece".***** It is not only unique, it is very, very different from anything else on the planet, and "overpowering" in the effect it creates when you walk through the gatehouse from the street and are confronted by it. If I say that Michelangelo's ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is a "supreme masterpiece", no-one (no-one sensible) questions it. Well, this facade might not be as well known, but it is right up there with "the Creation of Adam", the Taj Mahal and the "Jupiter" Concerto! The reason why it isn't known to the general public is that:
-
- a) it never was the tallest.
- b) Michelangelo didn't do it.
- c) it has nothing to do with President Lincoln.
- d) Harry Potter hasn't been filmed there.
- e) It hasn't been the backdrop to Live Aid.
- f) Dan Brown hasn't written about it yet.
- This problem again! In describing these, or any buildings, it is not enough to use a word like "famous" or "renowned" which both seem to be acceptable on wiki. The architectural writer seeks a) to describe the character and impression of the building, which is a different thing from saying that it is in the Early English style, and has three tall arches across a facade of 153 feet. This information may be true but tells the reader next to nothing. b) to create a scale of significance for the buildings eg:
-
- One of the problems here is that if I was writing about Heavy Metal music, for example, I would find that the styles, and people's preferences for them were defined down to the enth degree and I could describe the style of a band with a precision that almost defies logic. And these definitions would be of extraordinary significance to those who shop on Itunes.
- But no such divisions are available when it comes to the facades of Ripon, Wells and Peterborough Cathedral. These three buildings of enormously different character are simply lumped together as "Early English Gothic". And I, as a writer, have no way to bring them to the wiki public, except by the use of so-called "weasel words".
- Remove the section "architectural styles" (It's not needed, it's already wikilinked extensively in the article)
-
-
- This section is not intended to simply describe the styles. The important thing that it does is show how a particular style is applied to and can be seen at a range of different buildings. Canterbury, for example, has Norman architecture, but you would have to search to find it. If you want to see a Norman cathedral then you go to: Durham, Peterbough, Norwich.
-
Amandajm (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think these are just thing to think about as we move it to FA. It is a good article. -- SECisek (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External links
The offical websites should be moved there. -- SECisek (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re reversions of changes
- Grammar: It was bombed during World War II, leaving intact only its spire, regarded as one of the finest in England.
This was changed to "...leaving only it's spire intact, regarded as one of the finest in England." Definitely No. The first form is correct, the second form is wrong.
- The possessive case of "it" doesn't take an apostrophe. It is like "his, hers, yours" etc The rule is clear with "his" but not so obvious with the other and people sometimes get "her's" and "your's" wrong. If you write "it's" you mean "it is".
- The subject of the final phrase is "the spire". This is not "intact, which is regarded as... finest in England". It is "the spire, which is regarded as... finest in England."
- Forms like "leaving intact" are not particularly common in spoken English but are correct. The two words together constitute a single idea. It would be possible to say "leaving only the spire". But this is not the case. The walls of the building remain, "only the spire" was "left intact". "Sparing" means something similar to "leaving intact".
- About the facade of Peterborough again, I reverted the changes, because they meant something entirely different to the statement as written.
- Saying that the facade is good "despite the changes" is not the same as saying that it is good "taken as a whole".
- In the case of the facade of Lincoln, one has a mish-mash of styles and periods, with no architectural unity whatsoever, but "taken as a whole" it is majestic.
- In the case of Peterborough, there is a stupendous and totally unified design, marred by two features- that the towers were not both levelled or both raised to the same height, and that a large porch (a nice thing in itself) was jammed into the main arch, therefore completely distracting from the original and brilliant concept. The facade of Peterborough remains majestic "despite" these intrusions.
Amandajm (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anglicanism portal
I think it is appropriate to have it in the more prominent position ie. near the intro. Amandajm (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wow
For a new article and DYK entry, this is astounding. Well written on a fascinating subject, with a large amount of detail and lots of excellent and relevant pictures. Take this to Featured Articles immediately! Modest Genius talk 12:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you everybody who has contributed!
- I am so glad that someone picked up on the fact that Rochester had taken a trip to the west, that York Minster had changed its title and that Norwich was still obstinately offline and the other little things that needed doing.
- Opinion needed: I have heard both Southwell and Lincoln referred to as "Minster". What are the local preferences?
- As for putting it up as a Featured Article candidate....I don't know that I have the energy that it takes, just at the moment! The whole business can be a ghastly process! Amandajm (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I would expect to see Southwell Minster & Lincoln Cathedral - as per the titles of our articles. Southwell has only been a cathedral since 1884 (previously in diocese of York), whereas Lincoln has been one since 1072, which no doubt accounts for the difference. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Red link
Cathedral Architecture - Development and diversity of towers in Western Europe this is linked as the main article for the Towers section of this one - was it renamed or deleted? Lethesl 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
