Talk:Netley Abbey/GA1

GA Review

Starting GA review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Initial look

Article is generally good, but some "oversights", that could have been picked up earlier:

• Some of your wikilinks link to disambig pages, or an invalid link. I've corrected a few, but I doubt that Holy Blood is the link that you need; Buttery is also a disambig page, but does not appear to link to a suitable page.
• The cloister section is stated to have started the same time as the church, and was finished in a decade; but the church section does not have a start date, only a finish date range 1290-1320.
• first paragraph in Cloister is unreferenced. Pyrotec (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination – on hold

Article is generally good, but some "oversights", that could have been picked up earlier.

Most of the wikilinks are now sorted. Holy Blood needs attention, and you might like to consider Buttery.

Other points needing attention; mostly lack of in-line citations:

• The Lede: includes two statements not made elsewhere - (1) "Netley Abbey is among the best preserved medieval Cistercian monasteries in southern England". This, presumably, should be a summary of a similar statement in the Present day section; the latter (yet to be added) occurrence needing a citation. (2) Ditto, the site being a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

• Cloister and east range section: first para is unreferenced. The date that work stated on east range is vague to the point of referring to the start date of the church, which is also undated in respect of its start date.
• Present day section: only the last sentenced is referenced.
• Whilst some sections have a reasonable number of in-line citations, such as Country House and abandonment, other sections are quite "thin" in respect of in-line citations. Presumably, your existing references could be used to verify some of these omissions? Pyrotec (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review response

• (i) Done. Thanks for doing the various disambiguations for me. I've corrected the Holy Blood to the Blood of Christ(not a Ukrainian metal band, hopefully!) and unlinked buttery because the purpose of the room in this context is described in the article text.
• (ii) Done. The statement about it being the among the best preserved Cistercian monasteries in Southern England was in the Present Day section, mention of the Ancient Monument status was in the Romantic Ruin section. I've moved the latter to the Present Day section and both are now cited.
• (iii) Done and Done(ish) The first para is now cited. That the cloister alley nearest the church was used as the primary day room and study place is such a standard feature of mediaeval western European monasteries that I didn't think it needed citing. I put in the description of what it was used for for the benefit of the general reader who isn't familiar with mediaeval Cistercian monasteries in order to give them some understanding of the abbey. I've done the same thing in other places as you've noted. re: the date of starting the church and the east range I purposely left it vague because we really don't know and I wanted to avoid speculation and original research. It is quite possible that groundwork and layout for the buildings began in the early 1240s but serious work only began in the late 1240s or even around the 1250 mark, or it could be that the east end, crossing of the church and east range are works of the 1250s through to the 1270s, or a combination of the two. I've rewritten the relevant section to give the (little) solid evidence we have and to mention that the dating of the various parts of the church is on stylistic grounds. There isn't an academic controversy about this, there really is so little to go on. See what you think of what I've done, I hope it's a bit clearer now.

re the east range, we know it was begun at the same time as the church as the walls are bonded in to the church, it was standard practice and the window tracery reflects the period of the east end of the church, as would be expected. Full information is given in the cites.

• (iv) Done.
• (v) Would you be willing to give me examples of places where the article is under-cited so I can put them in? Netley is a fairly standard small Cistercian monastery of its period. I've cited for unusual and interesting features (such as the strange lack of an infirmary complex or the small west range) and in places where a source is obviously needed. As I've said, I have included passages describing, for instance, the use of certain areas of the abbey during the monastic period to make the article accessible to the general reader but the content of those is so basic as not needing a cite (such as the fact that Netley, in common with all other contemporary western European abbeys had a precinct filled with agricultural, industrial and administrative buildings - it would be notable if it didn't), at least to my mind. On the other hand, this is my academic field and many things that seem obvious to me are not, and that's where your fresh eye is so great. It's also true that most of the sections with fewer cites are those in which I'm describing standing buildings, which might not be clear to the reader through use of tense. Perhaps this should be changed as well?

Soph (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

GA

Congratulations and thanks for all your hard work. I've assessed the article as GA-class. I will reply to you question (v) later.Pyrotec (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)