Talk:Ranworth rood screen/GA1

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

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 17:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Very pleased to pick this one up. It looks interesting. I'll work on it over the next few days and ping you when I'm done. I tend to make comments as I work through the article, and then summarise the position at the end. Here's an example of the approach. You're welcome either to wait, or to respond to the comments piecemeal, as suits you best. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * Infobox
 * You've not used one. They are completely optional, but depressingly controversial. You may want to consider it, if you've not already. Something like, "Infobox - artifact", used here, would fit the bill.
 * ✅ Done (but I'm not sure it improves the article).Amitchell125 (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * “The Ranworth Rood Screen at St Helen’s Church, Ranworth, Norfolk” - super picky but the link to Church of St Helen, Ranworth doesn’t let me link to the village. Neither does the church article. Personally, I’d go for Church of St Helen, Ranworth, Norfolk.
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * “one of the finest examples of a medieval rood screen” - one of the problems with superlatives is that they are prone to challenge, and to slapping with a  tag. A solution, and one of the rare occasions where I’d go with a cite in the lead, is to use a direct quote. Historic England calls it “one of England’s finest painted screens” which might do. Incidentally, you’ve not used the HE entry for the church, and I think it has some good stuff.
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And a rood screen is....? - while I appreciate we have the bluelink, I do think a line or two, early on and perhaps immediately following the single-sentence opening para., saying what a rood screen is, would be of assistance to the reader. Something like; a partition dividing the chancel from the nave / often with a loft above, and sometimes a Christ figure above that / a common feature of medieval churches / typically of wood, sometimes stone, iron in 19th century revivals / often decorated/painted with images of saints / something about its symbolic role as clergy/laity separator. That sort of thing.
 * ✅ -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done in the main article as well. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Last clause, 2nd para. - This left me a bit confused, on a couple of levels. First, some of the language is a bit archaic/technical, particularly, "women came to the altar to be churched" and "postpartum confinement". Could it be simplified; perhaps something like - "during the Middle Ages, women who had recently given birth came to the altar to be blessed, signifying thanks for their survival and their return from their period of lying-in." The links would work, although I think the Lying-in link, to the specific European tradition, may be more useful. Secondly, I'm not quite getting the connection between the first clause and this. Is the suggestion that women came to that specific part of the screen to be blessed - i.e. it had a particular significance for women, and was correspondingly decorated with images of the Virgin and female saints? I think that's what is suggested in the expanded section covering Eamon Duffy's view. Could it be made a little clearer here.
 * Partially ✅ I implemented the prose in, but as I'm not familiar with the subject matter and am a passerby editor just making edits here and there, I'll leave it to the prime nominator. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * “is relatively well-preserved, but the parapet above…” - not sure the word parapet, or its link, is the best here. Isn’t “loft” the more common term? I appreciate there’s no link, but parapet doesn’t seem quite right.
 * It was (and I think still is) possible to walk along the top of the rood screen, and so 'parapet' may be correct in this case. It is the word used by some sources, but I'll check again in case others use another term. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done—'loft parapet' might make more sense to readers. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "a group of East Anglian parish churches with medieval panels related to those at Ranworth" - do the sources allow for expansion on the nature of the "relationship", both here and in the body? Is the suggestion simply that they were contemporaneous? Or that they were undertaken by the same/linked craftsmen/artists? Or that the Ranworth screen influenced the others stylistically? Or something else?
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Background
 * "Norfolk has the greatest number of surviving late-medieval religious figurative screens, or panels from screens in England, with almost 100 examples." - Commas are not my strong point, but are we sure their placing here is right? Should there be one after "panels from screens,"?
 * ✅ Done. I don't clutter up with commas, and so have popped in a pair of brackets here instead. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "the rood screen at the Church of St Helen, Ranworth, in the English county of Norfolk," - I know the body reproduces the content of the lead, but the repetition of the full name/geographic location here reads rather oddly to me, especially as Norfolk is referenced in the previous sentence. Perhaps - "the rood screen at St Helen's, Ranworth, ..."?
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "the screen has been dated to c. 1479–1480" - do we know the dating methodology? I'm assuming Dendrochronology, which is referenced at the very end, in the Ranworth group of rood screens section. Could we say something about that here? As an aside, I don't think the article anywhere mentions the construction material. I agree it's obviously wood, but should it be mentioned?
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Description - Screen
 * Depth - I initially struggled to understand that the screen has depth, as well as height/width, i.e. it's a rectangular box, rather than a flat screen. Neither the main image, nor the diagram, quite convey this for me, so I think we need some words. It's what you're getting at, I think, in the discussion of the nave altars. You also note the rarity of such designs, which is another reason to expand upon it, as far as the sources allow.
 * ✅ Done, please let me know what you think. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Probably the best known rood screen in England, and was considered by the British architectural critic Nikolaus Pevsner to be “the finest surviving screen arrangement surviving in Norfolk.”" - this sentence doesn't quite work. Perhaps - "Probably the best known rood screen in England, the architectural historian Nikolaus Pevsner considered it, “the finest surviving screen arrangement surviving in Norfolk”." Also on this sentence; I think Pevsner was more a historian than a critic; I'm not sure it's necessary, or entirely accurate, to describe him as "British"; and did he really use "surviving" twice in four words? My Pevsners aren't currently accessible, but it seems a, rare, instance of clumsy prose.
 * ✅ Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "The parapet above the screen has not survived" - see comment on parapet in the Lead section above.
 * ✅ Done (as per lead). Amitchell125 (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Description - Screen panels
 * First two para.s "a young-looking archbishop saint" - Here, I got rather confused regarding Image 2, A young archbishop. We start on this in the first para., and then jump back to it in the second-fourth sentences of the second para., with St George being discussed in the middle. First, could it be re-ordered to address this. And secondly, I can't make sense of the timeline. The first para. says the young archbish was "over-painted" - does this mean it was painted over to represent the archbish, i.e. it originally depicted St John, or that the archbish was the original image, subsequently painted over to represent St John? And the second para. says "once obscured the original St. John panel", but which was the original, Image 2 or Image 3? I can't make a suggestion, as I can't get my head around what the sources are saying likely happened. Is it possible to clarify it?
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Cornelius Jansen Walter Winter" - Who he, Ed? I learn he was a, not very successful, Suffolk painter (dates 1817-91). Could he be introduced, and does the source allow anything more to be said about his "discovery" of the dragon? Was it previously obscured, like John the Baptist, but by dirt, or varnish? Presumably, Winter was producing illustrations of the saints. This source,, has his self-description as an "antiquarian draughtsman". I've read the Morant/L'Estrange source and I fear there's going to be little/nothing to add, unless any of the other sources also touch on it.
 * ✅ Text amended slightly and corrected (I mixed up two saints). I looked elsewhere but found little else about Winter and the dragon. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "The saints depicted in the central rood screen are the 12 Apostles, in the order of:" - the prose order doesn't seem to match the order in the diagram. The first runs: St Simon, St Thomas, St Bartholomew, St James, St Andrew, St Peter, St Paul, Saint John, St Philip, St James the Less, St Jude, St Matthew. But the diagram runs: St Peter, St Andrew, St James, St Bartholomew, St Thomas, St Simon, St Paul, St John, St Philip, St James the Less, St Jude, St Matthew. That is, the right hand side matches up, but the left appears not to.
 * ✅ Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Description - Lady Altar
 * "The Lady Altar (also referred to as the Lady Chapel) is dedicated to Virgin Mary" - "The Lady Altar (also referred to as the Lady Chapel) is dedicated to the Virgin Mary"?
 * ✅ Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Virgin Mary is shown with the infant Jesus on her lap as she breastfeeds him, an image that symbolised the spiritual nourishment given to worshippers by Christ." - does this need a specific citation, or does Source 19 at the end of the para. cover it?
 * ✅ Refs amended to clarify this. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Worshippers regarded the depicted saints as talented in their own way" - not sure I get what this is trying to say. That they possessed "special/super powers"? That they had virtues/attributes which made them relevant in particular circumstances, e.g. Patron Saints of travellers/lost things/childbirth?
 * ✅ Text cut (the paragraph seems unnecessary, so I have removed it). Amitchell125 (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "women came to this altar to be churched" - see comment on "churched" in the Lead section.
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Recording and conservation
 * Harriet Gunn and her sister Hannah visited Ranworth church four times in April 1839, at a time when few knew of its existence - Few knew of the existence of the church? What about the parishioners? Is it that few knew of the rood screen? Surely, even that's debatable?
 * ✅ Agreed, so sentence trimmed down. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "designs for a proposed restoration" - do the sources say anything about why the proposed restoration wasn't undertaken, assuming that it wasn't?
 * I didn't find anything when I first looked, but I'll take another look at the sources, in case there's more information available. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Ranworth group of rood screens
 * "medieval panels related to those at Ranworth" - see comment in Lead section. Is there anything more to be gleaned from the sources as to the nature of the relation between the screens? For example, can Plummer's suggestion be expanded. "two generations" of the same family/artistic group?
 * ✅ I have expanded this section as far as I think is possible for this article. Plummer's proposal has gone, as there is no general agreement about it. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Notes and References
 * All fine.


 * Sources
 * Publisher locations - we have a mix, in that some have them, e.g. Pevsner, and some don't, e.g. Duffy. I think we need to be consistent. Personally, I prefer to have them. Duffy would be New Haven and London.
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Book bluelinks - another bone of contention. I like them, some editors don't. My personal preference is against Google links, unless they give useful snippets, since I was told off for promoting Google's commercial sales. I therefore use Worldcat, which, for example, would give you this,, for Duffy.
 * ❌ I would rather keep the books links as I have always done them. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ISBNs/OCLCs - I think these should be given, where available, e.g. Strange = OCLC 2963375,.
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Historic England listing - as referenced in the Lead section, I think you could use this, both for Comprehensiveness, and for the material it has. In particular, I think the "One of England's finest painted screens" quote is too good to leave out, coming as it does from the heritage listing body.
 * ✅ Done. (listed in the References section). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Further reading
 * The late User:Brianboulton, the most indefatigable of FAC Source reviewers, once questioned the purpose of such sections, on the grounds that, if they had anything useful in them, they should be used in the main article. For example, and assuming you can access it, is there nothing in the Plummer/Whittingham and Wrapson would couldn't be used to expand on the rood screen group relationship issue?
 * ❌ Section not removed. We seem to have wandered away from the GA criteria here, unless i am mistaken. The sources I have listed imo should be recommended to readers. Hart is interesting, but is too old to use as a source for the article; Plummer is not currently accessible to me—I will place it in the talk page instead of here, as it will certainly contain useful information. I will try to access Wrapson. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * See also
 * See also - you don't have a See also section. I wonder if there should be one, to cover:
 * Church of St Helen, Ranworth
 * Ranworth Antiphoner
 * ✅ Partly done, as the church is already linked in the article (see MOS:NOTSEEALSO). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Images
 * Diagram - I like this. A minor point, and working on the assumption you can amend it, but would the numbering of the images flow better in a strictly Left to Right/North to South order? That would mean renumbering the current "24/25/26" as "20/21/22" and the current "20/21/22/23" as "23/24/25/26". That would follow the order at the North end.
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Gallery? - Personally, I like these, and I think there are some good Commons images (mostly/all yours!) which could be included. I particularly like ones such as Rood Screen 3.JPG, which gives a sense of the screen's depth. Just a thought, no deal-breaker for GAN.
 * ❌ I'd rather not include a gallery here, as I believe images should be used only to illustrate the text (see WP:IG for where i am coming from), and the links to other sites have some excellent images of the panels. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alt text - again, not a deal-breaker under the GA criteria, but have you considered Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images for accessibility?
 * ✅ Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Review Summary
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * The prose is of a high standard. I've noted in the second bullet of Description - Screen the only instance where I think a spot of re-drafting is needed.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I think it is MoS compliant.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * It's unfortunate that most of the papers are padlocked, but there's nothing the nominator can do about that. Nevertheless, I've checked every source that is freely accessible and they're all fine. I've flagged a query regarding the Pevsner quote, which I can't currently check myself.
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * The Sources are fine, covering a range from the 19th to 21st centuries. I've indicated the one area where I think an additional source could be used, the HE listing for the church. I've also flagged a point re. the Further reading section for the nominator to consider.
 * c. (OR):
 * No evidence of OR found.
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Earwig is fine,, it's all titles.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * It covers all major aspects of the article, and the range of scholarship, well.
 * b. (focused):
 * It's focused.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Fine for NPOV.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * All look good, most being by the nominator.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All good. Have made suggestions re. a Gallery and alt-text but neither are criteria requirements.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * All look good, most being by the nominator.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All good. Have made suggestions re. a Gallery and alt-text but neither are criteria requirements.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

OK - I'm done, and will put it On Hold. Have a look and see what you think. Ping me if there are any queries, or if you need longer than the standard seven days. KJP1 (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments now (hopefully) addressed, many thanks for your detailed and helpful review. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * - Apologies, RL a bit chaotic just now. I should be able to give it the once over tomorrow. It is looking very nice! KJP1 (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And pleased to Pass. Thank you for the article, which was a very interesting read. I'm fond of rood screens. If you ever get the chance, and haven't been, the one at St Issui's Church, Partrishow is considered the best Welsh example. And thanks also for the prompt and comprehensive response to the review. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)