Talk:Cathedral of St. John the Divine/GA1
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Yakikaki in topic GA Review
GA Review
editThe 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 toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Yakikaki (talk · contribs) 11:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll be happy to commit to reviewing this important article. It's quite long, and I'm usually quite busy during the week, but I will strive to do it within reasonable time. Bear with me though if there are days on which I cannot find the time. Yakikaki (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- I actually did find the time to read the whole article with care today. I have gathered some observations which would, I think, need to be addressed before concluding the GA review. I will use the coming days to further scrutinize the article, but I can already now say that I find it to be excellent. I wouldn't be surprised if these are the only and final concerns of mine. I'm impressed by the work that has gone into this article. My points below are almost exclusively related to criterion 1a of the GA criteria. In many cases this is a matter of perception, so I'm also open to arguments about these points, and as the GA review is supposed to be "light-handed" (and of course I'm assuming good faith), I'm of course open to discuss these suggestions.
- Anyways, here goes:
- According to criterion 1b, the article has to comply with MOS:LAYOUT. I’m not sure whether the portal template is to be considered a navigation template or not, but if it is, it should be moved to the bottom of the article according to that guideline.
- I have done this. epicgenius (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- The rest of my reflections concern mainly the clarity of the text.
- Under the heading Site:
- In the first sentence, “originally” is a bit vague; when are we talking about exactly? One idea is to simply skip this, and go straight to “The neighborhood of Morningside Heights was first settled by the Dutch, then by the British.” That is was rural is implied clearly through the following sentence. But I’m open to other ways to solve this issue as well.
- I clarified this sentence by going with your first proposal. epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- The sentence that starts with “The initial plans” – the initial plans for what? Please clarify.
- I clarified this sentence. epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- In the first sentence, “originally” is a bit vague; when are we talking about exactly? One idea is to simply skip this, and go straight to “The neighborhood of Morningside Heights was first settled by the Dutch, then by the British.” That is was rural is implied clearly through the following sentence. But I’m open to other ways to solve this issue as well.
- Under the heading Need for a cathedral:
- The sentence which starts with “The church would be called” contains the wording “after the term for a bishop's seat ("cathedra", from the Greek word for "seat")” which simply is an explanation to the word “cathedral”, no? I think it confuses more than it clarifies. If the reader wants to know why cathedrals are called cathedrals, they will read it in the “cathedral” article.
- Removed the long-winded explanation. epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- The sentence which starts with “The church would be called” contains the wording “after the term for a bishop's seat ("cathedra", from the Greek word for "seat")” which simply is an explanation to the word “cathedral”, no? I think it confuses more than it clarifies. If the reader wants to know why cathedrals are called cathedrals, they will read it in the “cathedral” article.
- Under the heading Site selection:
- In the first paragraph, the last sentence: “Additionally, the Barberini tapestries were gifted to the cathedral in 1891.” – the reader may be interested to know a bit more about what the Barberini tapestries are, a brief description or rephrasing could be helpful to make the text clearer here.
- Rephrased. epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- In the first paragraph, the last sentence: “Additionally, the Barberini tapestries were gifted to the cathedral in 1891.” – the reader may be interested to know a bit more about what the Barberini tapestries are, a brief description or rephrasing could be helpful to make the text clearer here.
- Under the heading Halt in construction:
- In the first paragraph, the sentence “To date, $19 million had been spent on construction (equivalent to $204 million in 2019).”, is this the summing-up of the total cost of the cathedral throughout its construction period? The sentence would, I think, benefit from a bit of clarification on between what years we are talking about here, exactly.
- Yes, this was the cost of the construction as of that date, adjusted for inflation. epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- In the first paragraph, the sentence “To date, $19 million had been spent on construction (equivalent to $204 million in 2019).”, is this the summing-up of the total cost of the cathedral throughout its construction period? The sentence would, I think, benefit from a bit of clarification on between what years we are talking about here, exactly.
- Under the heading Main structure:
- The fourth paragraph, the sentence that reads “Cram had initially wanted to use English Gothic models, which were relatively short and contrasted with the extant parts of the cathedral” – I’m not sure what “short” here refers to?
- Clarified - this is in the height. I welcome any suggestions for improvement on this wording, since "short in height" is probably not the best way to phrase this sentence. epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- How about "which typically emphasized vertical elements and height less"? Otherwise "short in height" does convey the message, although I agree it's not the most elegant way to put it. Yakikaki (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Yakikaki: I have gone with a version of this wording. epicgenius (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- The fourth paragraph, the sentence that reads “Cram had initially wanted to use English Gothic models, which were relatively short and contrasted with the extant parts of the cathedral” – I’m not sure what “short” here refers to?
- Under the heading Western facade:
- In the last paragraph, you write about the bronze doors: “They comprise one of four bronze-door commissions designed by Wilson before his death” – the other three were not for St. John the Divine? I was a bit confused since you then write about wooden doors. You may want to consider if you can clarify this passage a bit, e.g. by mentioning which the other bronze doors were.
- That is correct - the other three were not for St. John the Divine. I added a footnote explaining their locations. epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- In the last paragraph, you write about the bronze doors: “They comprise one of four bronze-door commissions designed by Wilson before his death” – the other three were not for St. John the Divine? I was a bit confused since you then write about wooden doors. You may want to consider if you can clarify this passage a bit, e.g. by mentioning which the other bronze doors were.
- Under the heading Nave:
- The first sentence reads “The nave was designed by Cram.” while the fourth begins with “These dimensions are about the same as in Cram's original plans”. It’s a little bit confusing: is the nave built according to Cram’s designs or not? Although you’ve mentioned that Cram revised his plans as work progressed and the cathedral as it stands today is not the finished product of anyone’s plan, it’s difficult to know for the reader exactly how to reconcile the two statements here.
- Yes, the nave was originally designed by Cram, but the final dimensions aren't the same as in the original plans. epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- The first sentence reads “The nave was designed by Cram.” while the fourth begins with “These dimensions are about the same as in Cram's original plans”. It’s a little bit confusing: is the nave built according to Cram’s designs or not? Although you’ve mentioned that Cram revised his plans as work progressed and the cathedral as it stands today is not the finished product of anyone’s plan, it’s difficult to know for the reader exactly how to reconcile the two statements here.
- Under the heading Sanctuary:
- What is a/the Magna Carta Pedestal? Perhaps you could very briefly explain it in the text.
- Done - I added a link to Bury St Edmunds Abbey, which this is apparently named after. epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- What is a/the Magna Carta Pedestal? Perhaps you could very briefly explain it in the text.
- Under the heading Crossing:
- The first sentence here is the first time you mention Rafael Guastavino, which is a bit surprising given the very detailed earlier history of the construction of the cathedral. It’s not wrong (and I will certainly not fail the GA review because of it) but you might want to consider mentioning him already a bit earlier in the article.
- Done - I added a link early on in the article. epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- The first sentence here is the first time you mention Rafael Guastavino, which is a bit surprising given the very detailed earlier history of the construction of the cathedral. It’s not wrong (and I will certainly not fail the GA review because of it) but you might want to consider mentioning him already a bit earlier in the article.
- Under the heading Synod house:
- Perhaps you could add a sentence about what this building is used for?
- Done. epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could add a sentence about what this building is used for?
Yakikaki (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Yakikaki: Thanks for the detailed review. I have addressed all of the above comments. epicgenius (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Thank you for a swift reply and quickly addressing the points above. I just have one final point now. In the lead it says it's the worlds largest Protestant cathedral, but in the text it says is the largest Anglican cathedral together with that of Liverpool (depending on how you measure). Is it possible to reconcile the two claims? Yakikaki (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yakikaki, I have done this. The claim that this is the largest Protestant cathedral is obviously not true if it is not the largest Anglican cathedral, so I removed that claim. epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Perfect, thanks! I have no other observations or thoughts. I'm going to promote it to GA now. It certainly deserves it. Impressive work. Yakikaki (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yakikaki, I have done this. The claim that this is the largest Protestant cathedral is obviously not true if it is not the largest Anglican cathedral, so I removed that claim. epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Thank you for a swift reply and quickly addressing the points above. I just have one final point now. In the lead it says it's the worlds largest Protestant cathedral, but in the text it says is the largest Anglican cathedral together with that of Liverpool (depending on how you measure). Is it possible to reconcile the two claims? Yakikaki (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
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.