Wikipedia:Peer review/Roskilde Cathedral/archive1

Roskilde Cathedral

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently completed a massive overhaul of the article. Previous versions consisted of large blocks of text with no coherent thread an no sourcing, and I felt that the subject deserved better. However being keen on details, I'm concerned that I may have made the article too specific, so I'm seeking external input on how to improve the standard of the article. Thanks, KDLarsen (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is, I'm sorry to say, a rather attenuated review, but I think it will provide more than enough for you to continue improving the article.

• The lead requires further work. It does not at present fulfil the MOS guideline which recommends a summary of the whole article. It needs to be expanded, and you should avoid very short single-sentence paragraphs.
• Article structure: I appreciate that you have improved this, but more needs to be done. Specifically:-
  • Navigation through the History section would improve with a more detailed substructure than the two overlarge subsections "Previous church" and "Current church"
  • At the other end of the article, the Royal burials section consists almost entirely of links, and needs to be restructured in proper prose form. The brief information given respectively under "Boys choir" and "Organ" does not warrant separate sections.
• Prose: Not bad, but could do with a copyedit throughout. I have picked up a few issues from the early parts of the article; this should not be considered a complete list, but it gives an idea of the sorts of things that could be improved:-
  • "The king built a royal farm and next to it, a small stave church was built, dedicated to the Holy Trinity." You need to specify that these were built at Roskilde.
  • In the same sentence, why do you switch mid-sentence from active voice "The king built..." to passive voice "a small stave church was built"? If the king built both, make this clear.
  • Generally too many references to "the king" when it's not always clear which king. Best identify by name
  • Don't start sentences with "And..."
  • "depending on the source": Doesn't quite work; I'd reword here along the following lines: "...though sources differ as to whether this happened inside..." etc
  • "he started sending" → "he began sending"
• Citations: This needs improving:-
  • There are numerous paragraphs without any citations., and uncited statements throughout the article. As a general rule of thumb you should ensure (a) that every paragraph has at least one citation and (b) that every paragraph ends with a citation.
  • When formatting references, use "p." for single pages and "pp." for page ranges
  • Use a consistent format for your bibliography (see Lotte Fang entry))
• A couple of small points:-
  • MOS: for date ranges use the 985–986 (with ndash, not hyphen), rather than 985/986
  • There are two disambiguation links that need fixing. You can identify them via the toolbox at the top right of this review.

I hope these suggestions will help you. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Further suggestions

I have undertaken a quick copy edit of this interesting article. In addition to Brianboulton's comments, I would like to emphasise the following:

• Make sure that there is at least one in-line reference for each paragraph. If several sources have been used, do not be afraid to cite them when and where they are pertinent.
• While the burial sites and chapels are of course a major attraction at Roskilde, I think it is equally important to provide more information on the architecture of the building, as well as its frescos and more important items of its inventory. You might find some useful information here. I suggest it would be useful to try to develop separate sections on Architecture and Inventory (in addition to the burial chapels). At the moment, some references to architecture are included in the history where they are rather difficult to find. The article in Den Store Danske covers these aspects quite well but you might want to go into a little more detail. See also the article from Kulturarv.
• Items in the lead should be more fully covered in the article. This applies in particular to its interest for tourists, the UNESCO listing and its place on Roskilde's skyline.

You've made some very good additions to the article. I look forward to monitoring further progress. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. - Ipigott (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)