Wikipedia:Peer review/Westminster Abbey/archive1

Westminster Abbey

I've listed this article for peer review because... As the Abbey is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, I really think it deserves to be an FA, and I'd like to help get it there. Any comments that you think would help it get its star would be much appreciated. Something that I think might need a particular look at is the references/ sources: I get a bit stuck with the formatting. Thanks, JRennocks (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

A few general comments:

• "File:Saint Peter Westminster Abbey Flag.svg" also needs alt text. Actually I'm not certain if the Flag of St Peter is necessary, and I would suggest centering the multiple images and moving it up.
• I don't think you need the citations in the lead per WP:LEAD unless the text is not cited in the body.
• "At least 16 royal weddings have occurred at the abbey since 1100." – "At least 16 royal wedding were held at the abbey..."
• "by the mid-10th century, housing Benedictine monks." – remove comma
• I don't have much issues with the current layout. However, I might merge "Dean and Chapter", "King's Almsmen", "Schools", "order of the bath" under Organisation.
• I might move the "Bells" and "Organs" subsection into the architecture. Mostly following per Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral. But feel free to disregard.

I find more problems with source formatting. As this is your first FAC, the source review will be under greater scrutiny with someone cross-checking the article with original sources.

• Source formatting is inconsistent. Refs 6 and 88 are from BBC, but why is ref 88 using "publisher" parameter?
• It's also not recommended to use domain names (e.g. westminster-abbey.org, Royal.UK, www.classicfm.com or www.thegns.org) as the website parameter. Such as Ref 102, which I would use publisher=Open University Geological Society instead of "ougs.org"
• Likewise for Ref 211, it will be The Independent
• Refs 1, 207 I believe also uses the same domain as Refs 183 and 184, and hence I would just go with publisher=Westminster Abbey. I can't find how the website page is attributed to the Dean
• Also, I would be cautious with the use of primary sources (especially right from the church's website), per WP:PRIMARY.

These are the general advice I can offer. If you like, cross-check with similar articles from Category:FA-Class Architecture articles, such as St Botolph's Church, Quarrington or St James' Church, Sydney. I might also recommend bringing this article to WP:GOCE for further prose polishing.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! This is good stuff. I've been using [[Wells Cathedral]] as my model, but I'll have a look at those other articles too. JRennocks (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Johnbod

• On a quick skim, looks pretty good, but rather long. You might think of devolving some of the later sections, on the people etc. FAC will probably want this.
• The sourcing isn't great - too many short guide books, non-specialist refs, and very old ones. Expect this to be raised at FAC. You should try to get hold of:
  • Westminster Abbey - A Church in History (Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art), ed. by David Cannadine, 2019
  • Wilson, Christopher, Gem, Richard, and others: Westminster Abbey, Bell and Hyman, London, 1986, ISBN 713526130 (art history)
  • some of the many specialized studies of aspects of WA from the last 30 years
• No mention of the important Westminster Retable
• Some of the paragraphs are much too long, & need breaking up.
• Strictly speaking, what we call Westminster Abbey is only the abbey church plus a pretty tiny precinct. The medieval abbey was a far larger area, plus non-contiguous areas such as Covent Garden. Really there should be much better coverage of this.
• You should mention the period after the death of Edward IV, when his queen and daughters took sanctuary in the abbey for an extended period from Uncle Richard III (also covered in historical novels and a tv adaptation).
• I'd advise not going near WP:GOCE personally.
• I like mini-galleries, but not after very long prose sections with no pics. Put 1 or two up into the prose.
• I may take a deeper look later. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you! The retable is mentioned briefly in Artworks and Treasures, but we could expand it a bit. Elizabeth Woodville is mentioned in Royal Occasions, but I agree that she should go in History, too. Thank you for your solid advice- I'll get on it! JRennocks (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Query from Z1720

It has been over a month since the last comment on this PR. Are you still looking for comments or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@JRennocks: To ensure that they saw the above. Z1720 (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder- I think we can close this now. JRennocks (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)