Talk:Despenser Reredos/GA1

Latest comment: 2 months ago by Sawyer-mcdonell in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

The 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.


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

Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 19:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Amitchell125 Nice to review more of your work! I plan on reviewing this article within the next 2 days. Ping me if you have any questions :) sawyer * he/they * talk 03:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply


Assessment edit

Well-written

 Y Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Verifiable with no original research

  • it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline   Passed
  • reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)   Passed
    •   Comment: I don't have access to the main source, McFayden 2015, but it seems pretty reliable. I looked through the other main ones and they also seem quite good, and spotchecking of text-source integrity is all good as well.
  • it contains no original research   Passed
  • it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism   Passed

Broad in its coverage

  • it addresses the main aspects of the topic
    •   Comment: I found some information in the Stanbury source about how the reredos may have been turned into a table as a result of the Reformation - this would be a good thing to include, as it would give context for why such a historic piece of art would've been "recycled" like that. The Stanbury source in general presents quite a lot of good information.
 Y Done. I could add more detail from Stanbury, but I want to keep the article 'encyclopedic' and not excessively detailed. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    •   Comment: The King source suggests different dates & influences for some of the panels, which would be good to add.
 Y Done (text moved around to help with this). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    •   Question: Pamela Tudor-Craig is mentioned in the text and her quote is cited to Stanbury - have you been able to access Tudor-Craig's work? I wonder if that might provide some more good information.
 Y Checked, but her work on this topic wasn't found. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)   Passed

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each   Passed

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute   Passed

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

Other feedback edit

  •   Comment: The panel has been completely restored by Pauline Plummer (like the others), so that the reredos can be used in religious services. This is in the middle of the paragraph describing each panel of the reredos; I think it would be better suited to the prior paragraph.
 Y Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •   Question: The panels are similar to others in a Norwich church, but experts cannot conclude from this that it was made locally. Which Norwich church? Is it similar to other examples found in Norwich generally, or is it similar to a specific group of panels found in one Norwich church?
 Y One church only, text amended accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •   Comment: Following its discovery in 1847, Way and a colleague, the art historian Matthew Digby Wyatt, both interpreted the altarpiece as having come from Italy. Way is not introduced in the article - needs clarification
 Y Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Amitchell125 I've completed my initial review; I will continue looking over the article in case I notice anything else worth commenting on. Overall, excellent work, and thank you for your nomination! sawyer * he/they * talk 07:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Issues now (hopefully) addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wonderful! Looks great. Congrats :) sawyer * he/they * talk 19:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.