Talk:Wells Cathedral/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 14:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't usually review architecture articles, and I got a little baffled part-way through this, but I couldn't resist as I'm rather fond of Wells Cathedral. There are only a few little issues for me, mainly regarding POV words, but nothing major. Spot-checks of the sources were generally fine, but there were one or two little issues. I'm not sure if this is aimed at FA; while it is more than comfortably going to meet the GA criteria, I would suggest getting some other editors to check this one before FAC as I cannot vouch for my architectural knowledge! Overall, an enjoyable read and pretty accessible for the most part. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• The stonework of its pointed arcades and fluted piers is enriched by the pronounced mouldings and the vitality of the carved capitals in a foliate style known as "stiff leaf". The exterior has a fine Early English façade with over three hundred sculptured figures.": Some of this is a little POV, and I'm uncomfortable with "vitality" and "fine" in an encyclopaedia article unless attributed.

• "Fine facade" is the least POV thing that any writer could say. What it indicates is that it is "intact", and "true to type" in a bit the way that a coin might be described as "fine".
• "Vital" is the precise form of the word used by AC-T. It's now referenced in the Intro. Amandajm (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• "As well as continuing the building campaign begun by Bishop Reginald, Jocelin was responsible for building the Bishop's Palace, as well as a choristers' school, a grammar school, an hospital for travellers and a chapel": As well as…as well as.

• Reworded— Rod ^talk 15:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• "He lived to see the church dedicated in 1239, but despite much lobbying in Rome…" Lobbying by who? And for the uninitiated, lobbying of who (and maybe why)?

• Reworded and a sentence added to explain.— Rod ^talk 15:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• "it already seemed too small for the developing liturgy, unable to accommodate its increasingly grand processions.": I'm not entirely sure what this means.

• Added a few words about the increasing number of clergy.— Rod ^talk 15:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• "was removed in an operation known as 'the great scrape'.": Is there a reason why single quotation marks are used here?

• Changed

Amiens Cathedral

• "The base is penetrated by three doors, which are in stark contrast to the magnificent portals of French Gothic cathedrals…": A hint of POV?

• Well, perhaps. Only perhaps. In France, the portals are very large, are emphasised by the architecture and are the main location of the architectural sculpture of the exterior of the building. They are renowned for their magnificence and are reproduced in every work on mediaeval architecture and sculpture. For this reason, a student might well expect that the three entrances of any Gothic cathedral might be grand. But two of these doorways are no bigger than one might find in a large house of the same period, and even the central one looks like a porch door, in France. Amandajm (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• "and together they constitute the finest display of medieval carving in England": More POV?

• No. This is without question. It's not a matter of aesthetic judgement; it's a matter of survival. Fewer of the statues were toppled, smashed, beheaded or defaced than at other locations. Amandajm (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• ""a masterpiece if the Early English style"": Is "if" a typo?

• Changed.— Rod ^talk 15:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• "The capitals themselves are remarkable for the vitality of the stylised foliage, in a style known as "stiff-leaf". The liveliness contrasts with the formality of the moulded shafts…" And again, a little POV?

• "vitality/liveliness". There needs to be an adjective that encapsulates the character of the particular style of foliage. If one was writing about the equally famous foliage in the chapter house at Southwell, for example, then terms like "naturalistic", "life-like" and "Botanical" would be used, and almost surely would not be queried as POV. The foliage at Wells is none of these things. It is highly abstracted. On the other hand, it has enormous "vitality". It gives a semblance of being alive and growing, with tremendous energy. So "vitality" and "liveliness" are used in place of "naturalistic" and "lifelike". There are a whole string of such words that are used by art historians to describe the essential qualities of an artwork, and which are descriptive rather than qualitative judgements, e.g. "exquisite" means that an art object is finely and precisely detailed; it doesn't mean that it is "extremely beautiful", hence a miniature painting might be described as "exquisite" but Michelangelo's ceiling of the Sistine Chapel would not. Amandajm (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Spot-checks: I did quite a few spot-checks which revealed no problems. Then I found two pieces of possible close-paraphrasing which need fixing, but subsequent re-checks revealed no other issues, so I'm happy enough once these are sorted.

• Text: "Wells Cathedral has ten bells, the heaviest ring of ten bells in the world"
• Source: "The bells at Wells Cathedral are the heaviest ring of ten bells in the world."

• Reworded (but there are a limited number of ways to say this.— Rod ^talk 15:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Quite agree. Surely these are facts? How far does Wikipedia have to go to reword well-written facts into clumsily-written facts (no aspersions, Rod), just to avoid charges of plagiarism, close paraphrasing and laziness? It's becoming a real trademark. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• My understanding is that if there is literally only one way to say something, or a very limited number of ways, then according to US law (which defines the copyvio rules here) it is fine to use as there is no "creativity" involved. But in this case (and it's an unusual phrase anyway), "heaviest ring of ten bells" is almost certainly not the only way to say it. The same for "also well-represented", which could be phrased as something like "other subjects/disciplines are also included". My own view is that it's better safe than sorry. Others are less strict than this, but plenty of others are more so! Sarastro1 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

*I'm sure you are doing your reviewer's job here with both rigour and fairness. My point is simply that there often seems to be two ways of saying something - one elegant and one clumsy. It's often possible to read a wikipedia article and spot the quaint avoidance of copy-vio. Safety has a price I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There really is only one way to make this statement clearly. Rod's change turned it into a mis-statement as "of this size" is not the same as "ring of ten bells", and "in the world" and "worldwide" don't mean the same thing either. The writing of the sentence in the original is not creative, as pointed out above. A sentence like "John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963" must have been written by someone, but it could hardly be the subject of a copyright issue, and neither could this. Amandajm (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Text: "The collection's core subject is theology, but science, medicine, history, exploration and languages are also well represented."
• Source: "The core of the collection of some 2,800 volumes is theology, but science, medicine, history, exploration and languages are also well-represented."

• Reworded.— Rod ^talk 15:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a fiddle with this section. Amandajm (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Amandajm (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Images: Fine. I'd like a little more publication information for the pre-1923 source of File:WellsCathPlan numbered.JPG if at all possible, but not a huge issue.

• fixed. Amandajm (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing: Not a GA issue, but it may be an idea to standardise the references used. Some use "page" others use "p". Some references include the year of publication (not just those where more than one source by the same author is used), others do not. Also, the comma use is inconsistent.

• Reference 64 is really not acceptable in a GA.

• Well spotted! Amandajm (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• There is a strange blacklisted URL appearing on the checklinks page (see the tool at the top of this page) for the Wells CVC website. It may also be worth adding the subscription required template to the ODNB entry.

• The strange blacklisting appears to relate to the site wanting to play you music when you go to it not sure what to do about it?— Rod ^talk 15:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems a little ironic to blacklist the choir site for wanting to play music... although am now a little disappointed that I got none when I opened it. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a new one for me! I'd imagine there is little that needs doing, or can be done. That tool sometimes throws up odd results, and it looks a little odd today. It can be left as it is as far as I'm concerned. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll place this on hold for now, but happy to pass when these minor issues are cleared up. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've dealt with some of the MOS one and will look at others. I will ask User:Amandajm, as the main author of much of the architecture section to comment on the "POV" comments - many of these phrases are well used in architectural writing and have particular meanings.— Rod ^talk 15:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I wondered if this might be the case, and I'm more than happy to bow to architecture editors on this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Observation by Giano

I have not seen any unjustified POV, but perhaps some of the terms need to be explained in slightly more common English: I think this is not far off FA (it's better than a GA), but as I have been asked, here are a few minor nitpicks.  Giano  17:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• "The walls are lined with deep niches framed by narrow shafts with capitals and shaft-rings like those of the portal." I'm not sure what this means, and I can't imagine many people will know what a "shaft ring" is - and it's probably best not to speculate.  Giano  16:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• "The exterior of Wells Cathedral presents a relatively tidy and harmonious appearance since the greater part of the building was executed in a single style." which is? I'm sure it says somewhere in the article, full of to many unfamiliar terms, but I have forgotten what it is by the tie I have reached that section.  Giano  17:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Improved this. Amandajm (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• A few terms need 'blueing' or explaining. I have no idea what a 'retrochoir' is. Similarly any will not be familiar wit a 'stellar vault'

• Retroquire is blue in the construction section. Stellar vault redirects to Rib vault, so I've added a link.— Rod ^talk 17:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• The article on Rib vault is mostly an old cut'n'paste from Britannica. I'll sort it out and illustrate it. I think the term "stellar" ought to be fairly self-explanatory. Amandajm (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I know as much about architecture as most people, and I did not know the term. If it's a rib vault, call it a rib vault. My English is not bad, but to me stellar means good. In relation to a vault, stars do not automatically spring to mind - now the connection is made - I see it, but i would still call it by it's more common name.  Giano  09:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• "retrochoir", explained; shaft-rings, changed to "annular mouldings", and "annulet"; "stellar vault" and "lierne" explained. Amandajm (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are a lot of flowery quotes, most of which are OK, but "of immortal and perfect loveliness" make me, as an architectural writer, cringe with embarrassment. could we lose it? And as for "a veritable glimpse into fairyland" - enough said - pass the sick bag.

• Sure. "Immortal and perfect loveliness' has gone.

<How do you respond to this "In describing the vista through the retrochoir and Lady Chapel, architectural historians have used terms such as "pure poetry"[72] and "a veritable glimpse into fairyland".[74]"? It's still utterly icky, but it gives a picture of how viewers respond to this sight. I am loathe to delete anything quite so clearly over-the-top!

• Mmmmm; visitors are as visitors do. I am quite sure that when I dragged my fully wired and iPoded up adolescent sons through Wells Cathedral one did not turn to the other and say "Oh look, Angelo, there is a veritable glimpse into fairyland" even in Italian, I have a feeling this would not have been said. However, you have the source - so some idiot must have said it - so leave it - if you must.  Giano  09:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Giano, I cannot conceive of any super-cool adolescent Italian male who would express themselves in that manner. I have been acquainted with a number of super-cool adolescent Italians. The young man behind the information desk of whom I enquired the time of the train from Florence to Bologna replied "Who cares?" and then told the person to whom he was talking on his cell-phone that the stupid English woman thought he was the coolest person in the world.
• My sons are not Italian. They are not even remotely Italian. My sons are 1/4 Irish. My sons are perfectly capable of seeing fairies, even if yours aren't! Moreover, one of my sons spent a good part of his theatrical career being a fairy. He and Hugo Weaving started out in A Midsummer Night's Dream together. Look where being a fairy got Hugo! [1] Amandajm (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

WhatI was too subtly trying to say was that the quote sounds as though the article relies on the opinions of a half-witted, gushing vicar's wife who died in 1899, rather than a reliable authoritative source.  Giano  10:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Dear! Haven't you lived in England long enough to know that it was probably the vicar himself?

It's gone, anyway......... Amandajm (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

delighted to here it.  Giano  12:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• "They are not typical, however, and this classification has been challenged.[86]" Interesting, but why and by whom? - a simple ref is not enough. Perhaps best not to mention it at all, if we aren't going to have the story.

• I fiddled with this. The ref to the negative side doesn't look very reliable, but is obviously correct in dismissing one of the figures as a Sheelah. Amandajm (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Much better.  Giano  10:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• "The reason for their construction may have been in part because of the pleasant ambience which cloisters in general create." whose speculation is this? Do they create a pleasant ambience? - were people concerned with ambience in medieval times? Some people might say cloisters are spooky and Harry Potterish. The most likely reason is as a rain-proof corridor/arcade connecting various precincts, but even that is speculation.  Giano  09:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's a rewording of whatever the cited ref is. Amandajm (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• My POV is that although you are almost certainly correct in the speculation that they were corridors for getting from pointA etc, that Yes, pleasant ambience played a big part in the thinking behind many Gothic structures. By the time they built these cloisters, they had been an architectural form for hundreds of years, and before that, the Romans had built pleasant little courtyards with flowers and fountains. "Ambience" was around as a concept. A kid whose education into the nature of cloisters begins with a scene where an evil teacher in a vampire cloak walks up behind three innocent eleven-yr-olds and hisses :Someone might think you're up to something!" just might have a very different and perhaps less valid view than a monk who took a turn around the cloister as a little break between pages of copying. Amandajm (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you are relying too heavily on rewording the reffs - I'll have a look in a moment and make sure we are not too close to copyvio - it's easily done. I don't like the word "ambiance" you are selling the cathedral not giving an architectural summary.  Giano  10:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not insisting on that wording. I'm merely speculating on the nature of cloisters. Let's reword it or cut it. Amandajm (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

AC-T waffles on about it: ....the sheer pleasure they provide: and what better reason can be imagined? Amandajm (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's waffle. He's almost certainly right, but it really doesn't need anything more than the facts.

It's fixed. Amandajm (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC).

• I'm almost finished; I don't like nitpicking other people's work, it's why I rarely do this sort of review. Hower, as we are here: "It is probable that they served for processional purposes, a reason supported by the fact that at neither cathedral is there a north range." I think it needs to be explained why the absence of a north range makes this probable. It's repeating references again, without giving an understanding of why - most people will not be religious experts.  Giano  13:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just tweaked the following sentence to make it clear that the range described as "south-facing" is in fact the "north range". Amandajm (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"It is probable that they served for processional purposes, a reason supported by the fact that at neither cathedral is there a north range" What I actually want to know does why does the absence of a north range make it probable that the cloisters were used for processions? Why should anyone need to process there - does it link the high altar to the robing rooms? Church processions usually lead to the altar or the cathedra from the western most entrance; so why are the cloisters en-route - that's what needs explaining.  Giano  16:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I'm perfectly happy to accept that the "POV" terms are OK in architectural writing if Giano says so. Perhaps if he someone could check which ones are fine and which ones need tweaking, that may be the best way forward. I agree that this is closer to FA than GA. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Giano, please check my lst 3 or four edits, and I think you'll find it's all done! Need coffee! It's almost midnight. Amandajm (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't drink coffee so late at night. Almost there, just one more query above and then I'll give it a final read through.  Giano  13:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hummmph! I have a large mug of Twinings Camomile and Spearmint Tea and four Arnott's Vita-Weats with Vegemite. I would much rather have a strong cup of coffee and a wee nip! Amandajm (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether driven by tea or coffee it looks as if you two have been doing great things to the article while I've been at work.— Rod ^talk 17:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Just the one remaining query above about processions and the as fas as I'm concerned Sarastro1 can GA it.  Giano  17:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don' think it was as simple as processing from here to there. In countries where the weather is a little more predictable, outdoor religious processions have always been a feature. Parading around the town in the full drag, with banners and statues and holy pictures is a bit more risky in England.

The excessively long naves of Norwich, Ely, Peterborough and Winchester were built for procession. Wells, being planned as a cathedral from the start, had a role in serving the community which was not quite the same as the monastic cathedrals. The cloister at Wells is not a closed cloister. It had an entrance porch in the western range, not just a door, but a significant porch. I don't know what state it is now in, or whether there are photos, as it's impeded by other buildings. (I am at a geographic disadvantage.)

Anyway, a porch to the world suggests that it was a major mode of entry into the building. It would possible to assemble a considerable procession under cover, near the south tower, and then process all the way around three sides of the cloister, and in through the south transept door.

I think it is reasonable to simply state what Clifton-Taylor says about cloisters being built to facilitate processions. One doesn't have to have vast knowledge or be a genius to work out that this means people processed around the cloister.

Sorry Amanda, this is sounding dangerously like your own opinion and another's unsubstantiated opinion. Religious processions don't happen indoors or outdoors for no reason. Furthermore, they are not extended into private places like cloisters, they are for public spectacle not the exercise and health of those taking part. A porch would almost certainly have been built for reception of the noble dead, entering the cathedral precincts for burial within the cloisters (like a lychgate on a village church). The body had to be sprinkled with holy water etc before it entered consecrated ground. It's even possible that the cloisters were built for the purpose of burial - it was a lucrative business for a cathedral at the time. I don't know and neither it seems, does anyone else; so, I think without some more positive proof - speculation about processions has to go. It's potentially misleading; if it stays in the article it will be quoted as solid fact on numerous other sites within a year.  Giano  08:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Cloisters: In monastic churches the cloisters are indeed a private place and that is why they do not usually have a large porch onto the outside world. However, in this instance the cloisters were plainly built for some purpose other than the essentially private purpose they served in a monastic church.

A C-T supposes they may have been used for processional purposes. The fact that there was a substantial porch on the western wall of the cloister suggests a mode of public entry, which supports the idea of them having a processional purpose to about the same degree as the lack of a north range does. i.e. one can see how such a procession might have worked. And yes, it is speculation on the part of both myself and A C-T.

On the other hand, your suggestion relating to burials, is, I feel, a very good one. Amandajm (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I omitted to say that I thought your change makes it all perfectly clear that no-one knows. I have left a message below concerning grammar.Amandajm (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What I want to know from Rod is, what were the buildings due west of the cloister and what is there now?

When I last visited (a couple of years ago) there was a gift shop west of the cloister attached to the wall of the cloister. Further south is the Penniless Porch and a National Trust shop - I will add this as questions to ask when I do the photography visit you asked for - they have now come back to me, but still trying to arrange access to misericords etc and suitable dates and times.— Rod ^talk 09:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This porch, if it still exists, is about half way along the western wall of the Cloister, jutting onto the Green. There appears to be a wall at 90 degrees to the cloister wall. The porch must be located in the vicinity of that wall. Maybe it is incorporated into the gift shop.Amandajm (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, Rod, with regard to the library, I have found plans that show the library above the western range of the cloister, but the website states that it is above the east. Is it in fact above both, with the main visitor entrance being to the eastern range? If it isn't the library that currently occupies the upper floor of the western range, what is it? Amandajm (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Reid (1973 p113) says "The library chamber over Bubwith's cloister was 165 feet long, and we cannot tell how it was furnished and used in medieval times. As reconstructed after the troubles of the seventeenth century there seems to have been a room, as at present, about seventeen feet square overlooking the palace. The library proper stretched from this for some sixty feet towards the cathedral and was divided off by a partition, just north of the entrance to the external privy. About half the whole space was thus left unused. Then in 1728 there was an extension of thirty-three feet and the partition was moved northwards to its present position. This was to accommodate the books left to the library by Bishop Hooper and it seems likely that the whole was panelled at this time." - does that help?— Rod ^talk 09:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha! what if this thing that looks like a porch on the map is actually the external privy?

Rod, you really need to get up there and look! Wish I could join you! Are you far from Wells?

Even if you don't do anything else, please photograph the three misericords that are on display. Amandajm (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: Everything looks good from my viewpoint; I'm fine with what I thought was POV now (and have learned a little about architecture in the process!) so once Giano's last point it sorted, I'll pass this. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Misericords

Having just written this section, I realise it's too long. I'll chop it out, say a few lines here, and make a separate short article out of it.

Amandajm (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

My word, Amanda. With a few good images that could a fascinating article in itself. Well done. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at Misericords are fine all referenced and as they should be. It's a very nice page. Just the bit on the origing of the cloisters to sort.  Giano  22:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the cloister thing can be better sorted than it is. The "ambience" bit has gone. Well, I'll look again and make sure it is. The statement by A C-T that they were for processional purposes doesn't seem too hard a concept. Why don't you have a go at improving it, Giano?

because I am supposed to reviewing not improving. I strongly object the processional concept, but I will have a go.  Giano  08:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As for the pics of the misericords.

I am hoping that Rod will go in there with his camera and get permission. There are three on display in a case on the wall, but they don't photograph as well as those that are not behind perspex. On the other hand, photographing those that are in situ is difficult because (according to another site) the seats don't turn up easily because of thick cushions that are tacked in place. I think I'll drop the online gallery an email and see if I can persuade him to upload a few to Wikimedia Commons.

The other online gallery consists of the same shots that I have access to, taken by JCD Smith.

As a short-term measure, I will upload a low res Smith photo as "Fair use".

Do you think that the misericord section is too long and detailed? I could make it into a separate article, but I'd like to wait and see what pictures Rod can come back with! If he could get several good ones, it would warrant an article.

Amandajm (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That all sounds very encouraging. My own experiences with asking vicars for things to use at wikipedia have not been very successful, alas. But let's hope. I think you are very wise to wait and see what Rod can get. Photographing stuff in glass cases is very tricky, I find. The section certainly doesn't look too long to me. It looks very good - but if a separate article could be made, and this one trimmed a little, then so much the better, I guess. I think you and Rod have done a really first class job with this article, which looks about 1000% better than it did only a few weeks ago. Very well done. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

More misery Could someone please go to the misericord section where I have been hampered by my non-British keyboard. It needs a nice little pound sign typed in at the right place! Amandajm (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added the pound sign, but noticed that gryphons is to a dab page - should it pipe to Griffin?— Rod ^talk 07:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, I have a made a couple of minor changes to cloisters. I am happy with the page now and think it's good enough to be a GA. I see there are some further queries below, but as far as I'm all done here. I'll hand back to the chief reviewer  Giano  08:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I tweaked cloisters a few more times. Something had got left out. Pleas check.

Also take in the main page, with a picture of the planet Saturn looking like a well-sucked gob-stopper!

Griffin! Is that how you spell the bloody thing! Amandajm (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Red links

I'll do Arnold of Nijmegen. You can fight it out over Bykonell and the Oratorio Society! Amandajm (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Cut and Paste from George Ponderevo's talk page

Medieval

Please don't change the letter case in articles about English churches. Almost every ancient English church, and certainly the cathedrals (with only three exceptions) are more simply designated as Medieval architecture rather than Gothic or Romanesque. The term is used in the same manner as Renaissance, Jacobean, Georgian, Victorian and Baroque. Amandajm (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please try and get it right Amandajm, just follow the link. Honestly! George Ponderevo (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll go with that, until there is an appropriate link. It could go to the article about English cathedral architecture.

Re the cathedral school. Simpler is not necessarily better. The two statements were written very precisely and for good reason. The establishment of a choir does not necessarily indicate the founding of a school. It is the school that chooses to date their foundation to that point. Note that I have written "point" because a specific date is not available. The matter of dating of the foundation of the Cathedral School, as against the Choir, is somewhat contentious.

Re: "At the lowest level of the facade is a plain base, contrasting with and stabilising the ornate arcades that rise above it."

Please leave this exactly as it is. While I realise that your edit is simpler, let me stress that the subject of the section is the "facade", not the "base".

Simpler is not necessarily better.

Amandajm (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• "At this time a choir of boys was established to sing the liturgy, which Wells Cathedral School considers to mark its foundation."

The precise meaning on this sentence is now that the Cathedral School considers that the the liturgy marks its foundation. Try again! [Reader, please NOTE: this rather impatient response post-dates the insulting stuff immediately below it beginning "Since when did you get to be my master?"]

I very much doubt that no matter how hard I try I could ever be as trying as you. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Since when did you get to be my master and tell me what I can or can't do Amandajm? I suggest that you get off my case and find something useful to do elsewhere; I think you need to reconsider your whole approach here, which is frankly completely counterproductive and unlikely to achieve the outcome you're hoping for. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

George Ponderevo,

What on earth is the matter with you? Can't you be told anything?

You have been given reasons why these two changes are not appropriate. I have taken the trouble to write them on your page, rather than simply deleting what you have done. Why does that mean I'm "on your case"? What have you got to be so precious about?

• I have accepted your change to "medieval", having given a reason why I would prefer it otherwise.
• I don't see any value in changing "which" to "that" except that most Americans prefer it that way. It doesn't follow an English rule. But since many prefer it that way, it's better, not worse.
• Thank you for the practical changes you have made to the formatting.
• Pleased don't continue to make changes that affect the meaning.
• Here is an example of a non-helpful edit: "The statues are of life size."

Your addition of the hyphen was fine. The removal of the "of" was not. It took the language from precise to journalistic.

An art/architecture writer can say either "The statues are of life-size" or The statues are life-sized", but not "The statues are life-size".

Amandajm (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "dean" is a proper noun in that context, either :P --RexxS (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It isn't, but who dare argue with the mighty Amandajm. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I can be told many things, and I will consider each of them on their merits. But I cannot be bullied. I will, or I will not, continue to make edits to Wells Cathedral as I choose, not you. Amandajm. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And as for the distinction between "which" and "that", I suggest you invest in a good English grammar book. You might learn something. God knows, you've got plenty of gaps to fill. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And let's be quite brutally frank. You came here with a rant that was frankly a lie; the architecture of Wells Cathedral, as the lead says is Gothic, not "Medieval". George Ponderevo (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Response

OK. I'll explain:

The Early Medieval period of architecture covers a very wide variety of styles that were all essentially local and include Carolingian architecture, Saxon architecture, Merovingian architecture and Byzantine architecture.

The Late Medieval period of architecture includes two styles that were pan-European: Romanesque architecture (which is called Norman architecture in some regions including Great Britain), and Gothic architecture.

In Northern France, in Germany and in Italy there is usually a very clear division between the Romanesque buildings and the Gothic buildings e.g. Notre Dame de Paris, Cologne Cathedral and Florence Cathedral are all most definitely Gothic while Saint-Etienne, Caen, Pisa Cathedral and Worms Cathedral are without question Romanesque.

In England, this clear division does not exist.

In England, the majority of the ancient cathedrals span a time period of about 400 years, and include Norman (Romanesque) and Gothic architecture.

For example:

1. If someone talks about Peterborough Cathedral as one of the finest Norman buildings in England, then the statement is made with the understanding that it also has a unique and superbly magnificent Gothic facade, and a remarkable eastern end that was not added until 300 years after the facade, being very late Gothic. This means that any book about English Gothic architecture would include descriptions of Peterborough Cathedral, of which the greater part was designed in 1117 and is most definitely Norman.

2.The buildings dates of Canterbury Cathedral range from 1070 to 1505 (with its north tower not finished until the 19th century). The Choir of Canterbury and the Choir of Wells were under construction at exactly the same time. One could describe Canterbury as a "Gothic Cathedral" but where does that leave the Norman crypt, the Norman chapels and the two small Norman towers?

3. Another case is Winchester Cathedral. When you enter the building you see one of the finest Gothic naves in Europe. But here is the problem. It is incredibly long! This is entirely dependent on the fact that most of the stone at which one is looking was in fact put in place by Norman builders in about 1080. But 300 years later William Wynford remodelled the whole blinking thing by carving Gothic fluting into the old piers, and fitting Gothic arches into the Norman ones. The form of what he created was in part dictated by what was already there. The extreme length, for example, is typically Norman, not Gothic. The distance between the piers etc, was set in stone, so to speak.

The extended time-frame over which almost all the ancient cathedrals and many of the abbeys were built means that in making comparisons between English cathedrals, it is better to use the term "Medieval" than either "Gothic" or "Norman".

• So when I indicate that the term Medieval architecture is preferable to Gothic architecture when summarising and comparing English cathedral, this is the reason.
• I would like you to withdraw the statement that You came here with a rant that was frankly a lie; the architecture of Wells Cathedral, as the lead says is Gothic, not "Medieval"
• I would also like you to withdraw this "But I cannot be bullied."

No-one has tried to bully you.

You have simply been requested not to make certain changes, to several aspects of the expression.

• I am cutting and pasting this discussion to the talk page of the article. I am sorry that I didn't post it there in the first place!

Amandajm (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for you to explain, I know exactly where you're coming from, and it isn't a nice place unless you're a bully. So I suggest you leave me alone now, because I'm completely immune to bullies. George Ponderevo (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So, George Ponderevo, having insulted me by name, in ten of your edit summaries to Wells Cathedral, and left the insult clearly visible in the history of that article, you accuse me of "bullying"?

You have quite a sense of humour! Amandajm (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And thank you again for your practical improvements to formatting, spelling, removal of unnecessary caps etc. Amandajm (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding

George, if it wasn't for the rude nature of your edit summary "(am I the only one one who can read here Amandajm?)" I would have to presume that this was a well-intentioned edit.

I am sorry to say this, but the sentences you have constructed here are so wrong that you clearly don't know the subject, and perhaps ought not be trying to rewrite something which Giano, (who knows a great deal about the subject of architecture) has passed as "ready to go" (apart from the little theoretical matter we are discussing above).

You have changed:

"The architecture of the cathedral presents a harmonious whole, being entirely Gothic and mostly in the Early English style of the late 12th and early 13th centuries. While the majority of English cathedrals were commenced in the Norman period, Wells Cathedral was the first that was begun as a Gothic design."

to:

"The cathedral's architecture presents a harmonious whole, entirely Gothic and mostly in the Early English style of the late 12th and early 13th centuries. It was the first English cathedral to be to designed in the Gothic style, as opposed to the Romanesque more common at the time. "

• It is fairly common knowledge, George, that the Romanesque style is called "Norman" in England.
• "designed in the Gothic style, as opposed to the Romanesque more common at the time." is sheer foolishness.

One of the points being made in the sentence (as it is originally structured) is about timeframe. All the other cathedrals (except Salisbury and Lichfield) were begun much earlier. It isn't about choosing a style for the building. Romanesque was not "more common at the time".

This was the first cathedral begun in the new era of Gothic rather than Norman (the usual term for English Romanesque.

• The word "being" entirely Gothic is not accidental. What that word implies is that the reason why the building is harmonious is the fact that it is entirely Gothic. If you read the blurb above, you will understand why this fact is remarkable.

While the article undoubtedly has typos and words remaining from other edits, most of the language has been fine-tuned to say precisely what it is intended to say. The sentences that are conveying the crucial information have, for the greater part, been worked over very carefully and are nuanced to mean exactly what they are meant to say.

Amandajm (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Cloisters

Please fix dubbydup!

Either "Theories to explain...." or "theories explaining...." .

At present it says "Theories to explaining......"

Amandajm (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Passing

Well, this was an interesting one. I think it is the most detailed GA review in which I've ever been involved. I think it's certainly at GA level now, and Giano is happy that it is solid from an architecture viewpoint, so I'll pass this. I think some of the above discussion, if there are issues remaining, are better held on the talk page with a view to aiming at FAC. None of the issues seem to affect GA status. I think I've realised there is rather a lot I don't know about architecture, and thanks to everyone for sorting those aspects out, Giano in particular. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes it's better not to know too much. Congratulations to all concerned. Please note I did not mention the infobox even once!!!  Giano  18:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all.— Rod ^talk 19:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have contributed, particularly Rodw for all you fantastic research and hard work, to Matinevans for all the perceptive tweaks, Sarastro1 for reviewing this and Giano for adding his inevitably nit-picking expertise! (Yes, I agree totally about info boxes and I kept right out of it as well!) Not to forget Johnbo, Mr Stephen for tidying up and George Ponderevo for meticulous contributions to formatting, spotting typos and inconsistencies, and changing all the whiches into whatnots.

What next? I've fixed the red link to Arnold of Nijmegen..... I think I'll put him up for DYK! Amandajm (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)