Talk:Despenser Reredos/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

Assessment

 * I did a little bit of copyediting, but nothing major.
 * I'd merge the "introduction" and "provenance" sections into one section titled something like "discovery and provenance", as "introduction" doesn't give much information about the content of the section, and both cover related aspects of the topic.
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd merge the "introduction" and "provenance" sections into one section titled something like "discovery and provenance", as "introduction" doesn't give much information about the content of the section, and both cover related aspects of the topic.
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.


 * 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.
 * ✅ 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)
 * ✅ 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)


 * The King source suggests different dates & influences for some of the panels, which would be good to add.
 * ✅ Done (text moved around to help with this). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * ✅ Checked, but her work on this topic wasn't found. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)




 * glad to see we have a photo of what it looked like in 1898 :)
 * glad to see we have a photo of what it looked like in 1898 :)
 * glad to see we have a photo of what it looked like in 1898 :)

Other feedback

 * 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.
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * ✅ One church only, text amended accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 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
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * Issues now (hopefully) addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Looks great. Congrats :) sawyer  * he/they *  talk  19:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)