Talk:Norwich Cathedral astronomical clock/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 03:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm happy to take a look at this interesting little article. As an initial comment, the first paragraph of the lead needs some tweaking. The opening, "The X Y is a Y in X", needs redoing.✅ It also end by mentioning "repaired" when I get the impression it should be "replaced"? ✅ Lots of clock terminology throughout, but on a first read doesn't appear too jargony. I note the article is really about 3 clocks, although it seems understandable to focus on the astronomical one, and the lead and title reflect that focus. If there is any more detail on the current, fourth, clock, that might be worth including as well to provide a fuller chronology. CMD (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Overall lead coverage is good.
 * Well written
 * Alongside the above comments, the lead does need to keep in mind what its subject it. It doesn't make sense to introduce "[The] Norwich Cathedral astronomical clock" and then start the second paragraph with "Its replacement was a great astronomical clock".✅Sorted


 * "It is the earliest example of automata on a large clock" is a fragment where the jargon doesn't seem necessary, could use a rewrite ✅
 * "possibly represented the hours", feel it needs to say "hours of the day" or similar ✅
 * "The jacks were removed after it was decided they were too distracting during cathedral services", I assumed this meant the sound was distracting, but Starmer 1917 says (delightfully) it was the movements. Could this be specified? ✅
 * "They were sold in around 1800", Starmer 1917 notes "sold to or appropriated by", so perhaps this could be reworded to either note this or use another formulation such as "came into the possession of"? ✅Sorted


 * Verifiable with no original research
 * "The dial was completed after having been originally wrecked by a series of craftsman hired from London", my reading of the source is that only the final (successful) craftsman was from London.
 * undefined Text amended, but Beeson p. 104 says: "The work was given to other craftsmen... but they ruined the material. At several times messengers were sent to London from Norwich to get news of progress on the dial plate..." I can amend the text a little but it 'were Londeners warht dunnit' (medieval Norfolk accent). Amitchell125 (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "who became insolvent as a result of his poor workmanship on the clock", does a source interpret the Sacrist Rolls that way? The cause and effect read the other way around to me.
 * ✅ I've amended the ref to securely verify that it was his work on the clock that ruined him. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "which accounted for a third of the sacrist’s overspending", a third of the overspending? As in a constant deficit?
 * ✅ Text amended.Amitchell125 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Aside from these, spotchecks (on the pages I have access to) are good. Information is sourced, nothing too closely paraphrased found.


 * Broad in its coverage
 * Atherton et al. 1996, p. 442. suggests the astronomical clock may been burnt, is there a reason this is not mentioned?
 * ✅Sorted No reason, although I may hesitated as it's not clear if the clock was destroyed accidentally or not.


 * The loss of the 17th century clock is also not covered. Starmer 1917 says it "fell into disrepair", which may be better than nothing. ✅
 * As mentioned above, information on the current clock would round out the article well.❌ Is it the one that pops up in google images when searching for the Norwich Cathedral clock?
 * Sadly, the photos in google images are of the Victorian clock, no pictures exist of the earlier ones. There's nothing online about the latest clock other than the south transept was heavily restored in the 1830s, which is when it was probably installed. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Surprised to find so many mentions of this specific topic through a web search, but didn't spot anything significant missed here from a high-quality source.

Potentially an unfounded slight against London clockmakers
 * Neutral, Stable

I do not see why File:Plan of Norwich Cathedral (19th century).jpg is licenced as CC. Shouldn't it be public domain? ✅
 * Illustrated

I think that covers my comments. I enjoyed this article a lot. Best, CMD (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , all comments addressed to the best of my ability, I'll search out more information on the 4th clock but I'm not raising my hopes. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd presume the more recent clock would have the most info, but if it isn't it isn't, and it is as I noted mentioned. Aside from that, my only concern might be "understandable to an appropriately broad audience", but appropriate wiklinks are provided and it is a very specific article. With the other issues rectified, I believe these can be taken as areas for further improvement with the GACR met overall, so I will be passing this article now. What a great topic. CMD (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review, as local archives and the cathedral library are opening up now, the pursuit of more information about the current clock can continue. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)