Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cathedral architecture of Western Europe/archive1

Cathedral architecture of Western Europe
I am nominating this article which I have (almost entirely) written.

Note:- There was a previous article at this address, now moved to its own page, that focussed entirely on the development and differences between the Eastern Ends of Cathedrals- Cathedral Architecture - Development of the Eastern End in England and France. I considered the material that it contained to be far too specific to answer to the title Cathedral architecture of Western Europe.

My aims have been-
 * to make the majestic giants of a previous age approachable and intelligible to those who do not know them
 * to excite people to visit their local cathedrals and abbeys and enjoy them
 * to provide an historical background for understanding and vocabulary for reading these buildings
 * to provide the serious student with sufficient clues to look at architecture in greater depth and elaborate upon the generalised regional summmaries given here, formulating their own descriptions of specific buildings.

The subject is a very wide one, requiring several volumes to do it justice. However, I have attempted to introduce the reader to Cathedral Architecture from a purely visual point of view. ie. what one might see when visiting a Cathedral-
 * why it might be so very large
 * how it developed from ancient models and from usage to be the form it is
 * how it looks externally
 * how it looks internally
 * what the function and purpose of its various visible features are
 * how the architectural style has evolved between the 4th and 21st centuries
 * those buildings particularly representative of each architectural style
 * the local stylistic characteristics that are found in the cathedrals of five large Western European countries- Italy, France, England, Germany, Spain.
 * picture gallery of cathedrals from 12 other Western European countries

There was no room in this article to discuss the designers, builders, craftspeople, planning, financing, construction, structural engineering, building materials, deterioration, conservation or other matters not otherwise dealt with in Wikipedia articles.

Nonetheless, the amount of material covered and the large number of pictures make the article somewhat longer than is usual. The bulk of the pictures are within galleries and can be visited if wished. The illustrations that are directly pertinent to the text are kept large in order that the reader may be able to see clearly those things which the words describe. This is an essentially visual subject in which word and picture are integrated.

I have relied heavily upon both the methods and the material contained in the tome of the renowned architectural historian Sir Banister Fletcher, and have included in the References the names of most of the other books which I consulted in writing the article.

There is also a list of external websites of significant Western European cathedrals so that readers may take "virtual tours".

The article has been fairly thoroughly editted both by me and others for all the usual silly errors. It has also been vandalised, as many as 15 times in a day.

--Amandajm 02:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment you only need a brief reason why you nom'd it, not an essay. Rlevse 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Object way under referenced. A 54K article whould have way more than 8 inline cites (5 of which are from the same source). Rlevse 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply No, the article isn't lacking in references; It is extremely well referenced. But the references that are cited are not documents on paper. They are large buildings. A description like "The building has projecting transepts and arcading" hasn't come from a book. It comes from the building itself which is photographically reproduced beside the description. It is the method of analysis which is referenced, and the method comes from a single cited source- Banister Fletcher. Where quotations are included they are all sourced. --Amandajm 14:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply, Yes, you do lack enough refs. Inline cites are the standard and you have entire sections without them. You also need to convert those bulleted lists into prose. Rlevse 15:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - Way, way underreferenced. This is not a subject with a dearth of coverage, so there's no need to be resorting to personal observation of the subject itself. Cheese could have been written based on buying a bunch of cheese and examining it, but thank Eris it's not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Origins and development of the cathedral building" has no refs whatsoever. "Parts of a cathedral" has no refs whatsoever. "Conveying the Word" has no refs whatsoever. "Architectural style in cathedral buildings in Western Europe" has no refs whatsoever. Whole blocks of this article come from no acknowledged source. Older FA standards didn't require inline refs, but articles that were passed on that older standard are slowly being brought to WP:FAR and either fixed or defeatured. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply- just took a look at the Cheese article. Unfortunately something has gone wrong there and although it seems to have lots of inline references, none of them are working and there are only a couple of source books listed in the reference section. Something has gone wrong!

With regards to inline referencing- when one makes a direct quotation, or provides material that is questionable, arguable, provacitive, recent research etc, it must be inline referenced.

eg "Pregnant women may face an additional risk from cheese; the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has warned pregnant women against eating soft-ripened cheeses and blue-veined cheeses, due to the listeria risk to the unborn baby.[21]"

But in the case of this article, whole blocks of information come from the same acknowledged source and therefore one reference serves an entire passage.

For example, a description of five buildings which states at its introduction "The method of comparison used here is based upon that of Banister Fletcher.[3]" requires no further reference because every bit of information that follows is based on the "Bible" of architectural study. None of it is contentious material or recent reseach. None of it is POV, except other writers' POV in the brief quotations which introduce each of the five buildings and which are all inline referenced, because they are direct quotations. In addition, there is a list of 9 architectural reference books.

I must point out to you that the very excellent featured article on Diego Velazquez has no inline references whatsoever. It does have a list of its source books at the end.

Have you people looked at the content of the current article at all? --Amandajm 22:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Arguing with valid objections will get you not only nowhere, but reverse progress and OF COURSE we've looked at the article. Oh BTW, I'd vote against the Cheese article in its current form too. It'll likely get FARC'd soon. Rlevse 00:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The references tag was broken in Cheese. It has been fixed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Object per Rlevse. Suggest a peer review first.  Sandy (Talk) 15:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I have not read this completely and will not judge it until I do so. From just a quick review, I would follow the above advice of more inline citations, there is almost no such thing as too many.  I would also significantly scale back on the pictures, as they tend to overcrowd the already large amount of info.  It might also be good to try and transform some of those bulleted lists into more flowing paragraphs, as that would make reading easier as well.  The lead should also cover most aspects of the article, and the current one touches on very few. Good luck, I will read it through soon. Joshdboz 21:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Object for now. It looks like it will eventually be a lovely article. But there are tons and tons of bulleted lists, especially in the section about architecture in different places. It the size of the article is a concern, perhaps this could be split off into a sub-article? But I don't think a featured article should have so much that is note-like in form. I am quite willing to turn some of them into paragraphs, if that will help? But there is currently a "please don't edit" note on the thing, so I don't think I should do that at the moment! Telsa (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Telsa, thank you for offering to write sentences for me. You will find, that in between the lists, I have demonstrated that I can write prose quite efficiently.


 * It was never my intention to suggest you had not. I'm sorry if you thought I did. I offered because I thought you might be a bit weary of expanding things on your own, that's all. Telsa (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Style manual doesn't actually ban lists. I can't help wondering why you people are not reading the sentence inserted at the top of every one of the five lists of regional characterics.

It says- Note- This list presents a brief analysis of regional characteristics found in the particular building.[64] For a complete description follow the link to the web page.


 * I did read it. What I actually find most un-wiki-like, when I think about it, is not the lists. It's the links to another website in the middle of the article. I think I would expect to see links from the middle of the article to references at the bottom, and then the other websites down in the references or "External links" sections. (I realise that is cumbersome to mark up, yes...) Telsa (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The lists have a purpose. They are for comparison of the characteristics of the five countries. Write it as prose and you merely have a description of the building. Not a very adequate description because it only describes those features that are being compared. They are the features that are regionally significant. There is no room here to write about the dragons round the door, the swinging lamp, the acoustics and the ancient tiles etc. They belong on the cathedral's home page.

The purpose of this article is to be the best most effective article that I can make it. Turning effective lists into ineffective sentences will not make it a better article. (DEleted som redundant stuff here.)

--Amandajm 11:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Guidelines

Here is a quotation from Wikipedia

"This page is a style guide, describing how to create citations in articles.

The ability to provide sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged."

These requirements seem fairly clear to me. The citing of inline references for every statement that is purely descriptive and not likely to be challenged is unnecessary. See my comments above. --Amandajm 00:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK... We'll turn the five descriptive lists into indented paragraphs and see if it works. The short lists that are summaries of info elsewhere described more fully need to stay in point form, because they are not sentences or parts thereof..

--Amandajm 00:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Tried several different methods to achieve an effective solution to making points without making points.


 * Tried running them into paragraphs. Lose the sense of comparison between the five.
 * Tried different arrangements of indenting and spacing. Not effective.
 * Tried a heading for each of the 9-11 separate little paragraphs. Overkill.

Conclusion- The points are best lleft as bullet points.


 * Well, if you have tried them, that's fair enough, and I will remove my objection. Telsa (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question- How do I remove the article from the list of Featured article candidates? As I said before, I would rather the article communicated the subject adequately than was a featured article.

--Amandajm 09:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know, sorry. I am not a FAC regular. Telsa (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)