Talk:St Julian's, Norwich/GA1

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

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 08:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Pleased to pick this up. Should take me a day or two. KJP1 (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And done - sooner than I thought. A fine little article on a fine little church. A pleasure to read and to review. As I indicate below, some of the comments are suggestions, not requirements, and you are, of course, free to reject them! I'll stick it On Hold now. Let me know if you need longer than the standard seven days. KJP1 (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

REVIEW


 * Infobox and lead
 * Grade I listing - This is mentioned in both the IB and the Lead, but I can't see it referenced, and cited, in the main text. I think it should be in the Architecture section. On this point, I prefer using the NHLE template, rather than Cite web for the reference, i.e., but it's not a criteria point. ✅ AM
 * Church website - I wonder whether this link,, would suit better than the Church near You link? ✅ AM


 * History - Medieval period
 * Short paragraphs - the last 3 para.s are very short. Could they be combined?
 * ✅, but slightly differently, as I want to keep Julian of Norwich at the top of a paragraph. AM
 * Julian of Norwich - I wonder whether a little expansion would be useful? She is, arguably, the most important feature of the church's history and has the benefit of a Featured article. I'm thinking about her Revelations of Divine Love being the earliest known work in English by a woman. This would also make a nice DYK hook if you're into that. It might also be helpful to give her dates (c.1343 - c.1416), if only to distinguish her from the later anchorite, also called Julian. (All these Norwich Julians are very confusing!) ✅ AM
 * St Julian's or St. Julians - You've a mixture, here and elsewhere. I think MoS has it without the punctuation.
 * ❌ There aren't many FA church articles, but the ones I saw (here) have an apostrophe, so I'd rather keep St Julian's. AM
 * Sorry - my typo. The apostrophe should indeed be there, the issue I'm highlighting is the period (full stop) after St., which shouldn't. KJP1 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC) ✅ AM
 * Historical context - I wonder if you could have a little more about the historical context for the medieval church? In the next section, you write about the merchants leaving the area, but we don't get anything about how, in the earlier period, Norwich was a thriving commercial port, one of the great cities of medieval England, and that St Julian's, along with a host of other churches, was built to serve its population and demonstrate their wealth. I'm only thinking of a line or two. ✅ AM


 * History - Decline, restoration and destruction
 * Heading - Given that we have a section below called Destruction, and that this section ends with the 1934 rebuilding, I wonder whether "destruction" in the heading is appropriate here? ✅ Title amended. AM
 * "the church then underwent a restoration" - does the source happen to say who undertook the Victorian era restoration? Neither HE nor Pevsner do.
 * ✅ According to Upjohn and Groves, records of the restoration are not extant, text added to mention this. AM


 * History - Destruction during World War Two, and rebuilding
 * A. J. Chaplin - do any of the sources tell us anything more about Chaplin? From Pevsner, I see he did a fair bit of church restoration in Norwich. Is he related to John P. Chaplin, who appears to be the founder of this, ? It may be there isn't, in which case so be it.
 * ❌ I've looked around, but there's nothing about him apart from in Pevsner. AM
 * Present day - I do think it needs a line or two on its current status to meet Criterion 3a. The history currently ends in 1992. We know it's an active parish church, with regular services,, and that could be covered in a line or two. ✅ AM


 * Architecture
 * "a south chapel with vestry with a circular west tower" - is the tower part of the vestry, or should this read "a south chapel with vestry, and a circular west tower"? ✅ AM
 * Sub sections - Personally, I'm not sure that Font / Organ / and possibly Churchyard, warrant full sections to themselves. They could go as Level 3 sub-sections to this section. But it's not a criterion requirement, so feel free to leave if you disagree. ✅ I wondered about this too. AM


 * Organ
 * History - its history for its first hundred years detailed on the National Register - built for a private house in Essex and discovered in a warehouse - sounds intriguing enough to merit a mention? And that would answer inquisitive readers such as myself, who will ask - where was it for the first 100 years? ✅ AM


 * Churchyard
 * "During 2014 and 2015, archaeological work undertaken immediately to the east of the churchyard, which revealed medieval features, including graves" - this doesn't quite flow. I think either, "During 2014 and 2015, archaeological work was undertaken immediately to the east of the churchyard, which revealed medieval features, including graves" or "During 2014 and 2015, archaeological work undertaken immediately to the east of the churchyard revealed medieval features, including graves." ✅ AM


 * References
 * Subject only to my query re. the NHLE template, these look fine. ✅ AM


 * Sources / Further reading / External links
 * ISBN formats - super minor quibble, but can we have the 13-digit ISBNs in a consistent format. They are currently hyphenated in four different ways. ✅ AM
 * Round towers - - this has some nice images and may be useful for External links
 * ✅, but I remembered the superior collection of images by George Plunkett, and so provided a link from that collection's website instead. AM


 * Categories
 * Grade I listed buildings in Norfolk - would it sit better in that Category's sub-category, Grade I listed churches in Norfolk? ✅ AM


 * Images
 * All good.

TEMPLATE

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * On Hold, for consideration of the Review points.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * On Hold, for consideration of the Review points.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * - Earwig and Source Check fine.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * On Hold, for consideration of the Review points.
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail: