Talk:Lund Cathedral/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 07:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am happy to perform a review of this article. My approach is to review each section, make minor edits as I go along (links, punctuation, etc.) to save us both time and effort, and then assess the article against GA criteria. Feel free to revert edits that I made if you disagree. I will start this today.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction and infobox

This section is well-written, I just have a couple of thoughts:

Regarding The changes done during the 19th century went very far; would read more clearly as something like this: "The changes implemented during the 19th century were extensive;" ("done" could be replaced by implemented, completed, performed, etc.—"went very far" could be replaced with were extensive, were thorough, etc.)

Thank you, that reads a lot better. I've changed it. Yakikaki (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to link Reformation to Reformation in Sweden rather than Reformation in Denmark–Norway and Holstein?

I can change it, perhaps it's more logical in a way, but my way of reasoning was that at the time, Lund was still part of Denmark and so the direct event which had an impact on the cathedral were those of the Danish Reformation more than the Swedish one (though they were interlinked). Another option could be to chose a more generic wikilink to Reformation? Yakikaki (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki, your explanation makes a lot of sense. I would keep the Denmark link.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "pieces of art", what do you think about "works of art", a standard phrase?

Agreed, changed. Yakikaki (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made some minor edits here for consistent comma use in "In <year>," scenarios, consistent capitalization of the first word in the infobox, and two link changes.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Yakikaki (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background

This section is well-written and interesting! Just a thought (less than a suggestion), is it a bit crisper wording to say something like "overseeing" rather than "covering" in At the same time, in 1103, Lund was proclaimed an archiepiscopal see covering all Nordic countries.?

If it's crisper, it's better. Changed. Yakikaki (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

Foundation and construction

Second paragraph, what do you think of the use of "for" or "of", rather than "on" for Both books contain notes, written in Latin, with dates on the progression of the construction.?

I was unsure about it, changed to "of". Thanks for pointing it out. Yakikaki (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of "of the crypt" rather than "in the crypt" for Its main altar was inaugurated on 30 June 1123, followed by the north (1126) and south (1131) side altars in the crypt.

Agreed. Changed to "of the crypt". Yakikaki (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more of a personal preference issue, but I would use "for example" or "such as" instead of "e.g. in" for the last sentence of the second paragraph Similar stylistic influences can be seen in other cathedrals in Denmark from the same time, e.g. in Ribe Cathedral.[13]

Changed to "for example". Yakikaki (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "in Scandinavia", it is better to say "to Scandinavia" for The project was instrumental in establishing a workshop where local craftsmen could be educated, and thus disseminating artistic influences from continental Europe in Scandinavia.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Yakikaki (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Great job! I will get back to the review shortly.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and repairs

Regarding the first sentence "by and large" means "nearly" to me... and there are some noted changes. I would remove that phrase. It reads well without it.

I agree, removed. Yakikaki (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the same sentence, I changed "see" to "seen" which seems like a typo.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yakikaki (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, this section is done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changes by Adam van Düren and later

Looks good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changes by Carl Georg Brunius and Helgo Zettervall

Perhaps change "examine the situation" to "examine the state of the structure" or building?

Thanks, changed it. Yakikaki (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also is used in both the 3rd and 4th sentences. Could one of them be removed?

I changed the first "also" to "while at the same time". I hope it works? Yakikaki (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add "was" before "appointed" in the young architect Helgo Zettervall appointed to carry out the rest of the work in 1860.[58]

Added. Yakikaki (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be because I am used to American English, but I don't understand and ultimately got his will through, for the most part.[56][59]. What does "got his will though" mean?

I was curious about this expression, in other uses it seems like wherewithal, strength, ability to accomplish something. Is that right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to laugh at myself a bit because this is typical "Swenglish", I just took a Swedish phrase and put it into English words, I didn't even reflect on what I was doing. Yes, it means something like "to impose your will" or something along those lines. I replaced it with "and ultimately managed to implement most of his ideas." which I hope works better? Yakikaki (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a minor change here to the end of the sentence, changing "most of his ideas into the new restored cathedral." to " most of his ideas for the cathedral." Does that work for you?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is 1893 right in but Zettervall would keep working on restoring the cathedral until 1893... just checking that's a long time, but I know that a number of architects worked on cathedrals for decades.~~ I see this later, too, so it's not a typo.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was something that occupied him for most of his life, and also the work he was the most proud of in the end. Yakikaki (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. I will have to read his article. I really like that he took a tour of European cathedrals to develop his approach for remodeling this cathedral.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding In this way, Zettervall could piecemeal over the next decades in effect rebuild the cathedral largely in line with the proposal from 1864.[56][65], what do you think of something like "In this way, Zettervall could piecemeal over the next decades to rebuild the cathedral largely in line with his design from 1864.[56][65]"

Fixed. Yakikaki (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! I made a minor tweak, removing the word "manage" here from "In this way, Zettervall could piecemeal over the next decades manage to rebuild the cathedral largely in line with his design from 1864." Does that work for you?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since Brunius is retired by the end of the last paragraph, and it's now a summary of the transformation, is it possible to start out "By < year >," The cathedral was radically transformed by the work of Brunius and Zettervall. if you know.

I took the liberty of adding "Between 1832 and 1893, the cathedral..." which I hope works? Yakikaki (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's lovely! Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the mosaic, is it "to designs" plural (i.e., the large mosaic was made up of several designs)... could be, just wondering.

I don't know so I took the easy way out and changed to "and was designed by" — do you think that is OK? Yakikaki (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be clearer to say "31 October 2016 to observe the 499th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation.[69]" Or, would that be understood?

Definitely clearer, I added it. Yakikaki (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made minor edits here, two commas and a link within a caption.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super, thanks! Yakikaki (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made two minor tweaks above. My comments are in purple to make them easier to find. If you are good with those, this section is Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture and decoration

I love the sound of "as if they could be taken apart and put together again". Fun. A Transformers church!

I know! It seems like it's a big toy! And it also is pretty descriptive, especially when you look at the aerial view, I think. Yakikaki (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I did after reading that part - looked at the aerial view.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the second sentence, should "two aisle opens up" be worded as "two aisles open up"?

Yes, fixed it. Yakikaki (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding The apse of the cathedral is a "forcefully articulated" semi-circle in three storeys.[28] perhaps "of three storeys"? (That's how we would say it in the U.S. - if that's not appropriate for Europe/Scandanavia that's fine.)

It should very probably be "of" and not "in"; that's probably another Swenglish expression on my part. Prepositions are always difficult... Yakikaki (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made these edits to add a link, fix cite order, and change It's to Its (It's is It is - I have to catch myself, too, my fingers like to put in an apostrophe.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yakikaki (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section is Done, too!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sculptures

Since When it comes to stone sculpture, Lund Cathedral was the most lavishly decorated Romanesque building to be built in the Nordic countries.[76] is a claim, would this be "According to art historian Jan Svanberg"... or does he reference someone who makes that claim?

I added a more explicit reference to Svanberg here. Yakikaki (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an "according to" for These sculptures have probably been the subject of more attempts at an explanation than any other medieval artworks in Sweden.?

And here I added an "according to art historian Mereth Lindgren" as well. Yakikaki (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made some minor edits here - put link around the title of the legend and linked to Fin (troll) — at the first instance, a caption, and first instance in the body (this section) — since the article is about the legend; replaced/removed e.g., and i.e., since you seem ok with that; linked to Lombardic rather than Lombard, because Lombardic seems more correct; another link for artisanal; and fixed a minor typo. See what you think.
- Side comment, the article about Fin/Finn and his wife sounds interesting. I will likely improve the tagged article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very nice legend. I remember my mother telling me about the giant when I was a child. Let me know if I can help out with improving that article, I may have some good Swedish-language sources. Yakikaki (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki, That would be great! Right now I am just trying to figure out if I should rename it "Fin (legend)" - because it's really about the legend of building the church, with a troll in the Danish version and a giant in the Swedish version. I have a copy of the story that I was going to reference to summarize the Swedish legend, but so far right now that's it. If you have information that comments on the legend, that would be great! I have got some things to do today, so I may not get to it until tomorrow. What do you think about the article name change?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson The name change sounds like a good idea. I'll see what I can find and we can continue discussing it at either your or my talk page, perhaps? I'll put the article on my watchlist to start with. Yakikaki (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki, Great! I changed the article title. If you want, we could talk about it on the article talk page at Talk:Fin (legend), so that the record is with the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edits in this section are Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Altarpiece

I made one minor edit: minor edit 12--->Twelve, since it is at the beginning of the sentence.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Yakikaki (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Choir stalls

I made two minor changes here, consolidating two sentences into one, where one starts out "They were" and the other "They are". Not a big deal if you don't like the change, please revert it. I also changed "may possibly" to "may" since possibly is redundant.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot better, thank you. Yakikaki (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical clock

I added a comma after "In 1837".
What a fun clock!!!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know, right? Another thing that makes me think of a toy for children. There's a youtube video about it here; unfortunately it's in Swedish but in the beginning and at the end you can see the little parade. Yakikaki (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really like that video - thanks for sharing it. I like the way it showed the inner-workings - where the figures waited to make an appearance, performed the parade, and then showed the inner mechanical bits. Fun!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bronzes

Looks good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yakikaki (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pulpit

I think it's totally safe to say that I may just not may be getting it, but is "technically" needed in "technically skillfully attached"? I think of technically meaning with skill or "to be precise" or someone might not consider it attached, but "technically" it is.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does look weird. I changed it to "with unusual technical skill", do you think that will be OK? Yakikaki (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks great, thanks!

This section is Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baptismal font

I made one edit funt-->font.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yakikaki (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graves and funerary monuments

I made some minor edits here.
Is there a way to reduce the number of "and"s in the second sentence of the second paragraph, perhaps divide into two sentences (bishops / professors). Or, perhaps make a list? It's generally better to have prose, is an option.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I split the sentence in two to avoid too many "ands". Yakikaki (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks!

This section is Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flora

I made two minor edits here, i.e. to like and italics for scientific name.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Lund University

I looked at Lund University and the source for the first sentence, and it seems to me that in 1668 there was a ceremonial acknowledgement of the founding of the university. The automatic translation of the source, albeit not a definitive translation, is "January 28, 1668 Lund University inaugurates the Cathedral." The WP article says that the university was founded in 1666. In 1668, a library was established, but there's no mention of that in the source. It sounds like it may have taken awhile for the school to ramp up and the 1668 may have been a ceremonial activity versus when the university was truly founded. All of this is a long way of saying that it would be good to tweak Lund University was founded in a ceremony in the cathedral in 1688.[105], including changing the year from 1688 to 1668.

Sorry, the wrong date was pure carelessness from my side. I have tweaked and changed the sentence. Yakikaki (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, looks good! We all make silly mistakes - and I am somewhere at the top of the list - that's why it's great to be here for one another with a fresh set of eyes! (I think I am a better editor than writer.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few minor changes here to add a link and to slightly reword one sentence. See what you think.–CaroleHenson (talk)

Thank you! Yakikaki (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section is Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Do you have a source that says that the cathedral is used for concerts?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do, I have added it. It states that there are concerts every week in the cathedral. I chose to write it in a more generic way since I imagine the precise frequency may change every now and then. Yakikaki (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the citation, but not the wording change.

In any event, this section is Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

The article is looking good on all fronts. The article is well-written with some detail-oriented (aka nit-picky) suggestions above. For an article about architecture, as complicated as a cathedral, this is very well done.
The copyvio report is good, and the images are relevant and are properly tagged. I added some links to image captions so that someone scrolling through the article have accessible links.
It might be nice to have an image from the commons crypt category or another artistic work. That is not necessary, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a picture of Hermann of Schleswig's grave from the crypt, thanks for the idea! Yakikaki (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I like it! I added a link and the 12th century to the caption.

Thanks so much for all your work on this article and bearing with the number of minor edits. I know it can get tedious, but you were wonderful about it. And, it was a fun review for me. There are a couple of tweaks I made in this round, but they aren't a big deal if you want to tweak them as well.

It passes as a GA article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now listed at Good articles under the "Architecture – Religious" section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YOU CaroleHenson for an extremely helpful and generous review! I learnt a lot, and I really do appreciate all the minor edits. Since English is not my mother tongue, I know I get things wrong every now and then so it's very valuable for me to have someone point out how it should be, so I can learn. So many, many thanks! Yakikaki (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was really my pleasure! It was an easy review because it was so well-written and researched.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]