Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Romanesque architecture/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Romanesque architecture
Recent rewrite by architectural historian with input from several other historians/specialists. It now gives an excellent coverage of a very broad subject. Amandajm 06:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support This recent major re-write is comprehensive, well written, sourced, and illustrated. JNW 12:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support A great example that apparently "amateur" work can overcome the most brainhacked, gloomy Britannica highly paid boring professor. --Attilios 09:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Классно --Miwanya 18:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll admit to knowing next to nothing about architecture history (but am very interested to learn).
 * The lead needs to be linked more especially words in the sentence its massive quality, its thick walls, round arches, sturdy piers, groin vaults, large towers and decorative arcading are rather alien to people who aren't experts in the fields.
 * Reply, I try to avoid having too many links in the intro, if its all explained a bit further down, but things like groin vault could definitely be linked


 * I think a rewrite of the 3rd paragraph of the lead is in order: for one thing it starts with an "although", and is overall, quite poorly framed.
 * OK
 * Despite the impression of 19th century Art Historians that... - why does "Art Historians" begin with caps? The sentence goes on to say "in fact"; I think the reason for why the 19th century dudes are considered wrong should be mentioned there itself.
 * Will fix
 * the greatest building of the Dark Ages: is that POV?
 * Reply, Yes and No. I don't think it is POV. It's a bit like saying St Peter's is the greatest building in Rome. In other words, there is really nothing else with which to compare it. On the other hand, if I was to write that Durham Cathedral is the greatest building of the Romanesque period (as is often claimed) then a lot of punters would jump up and down in support of a different favorite.
 * remarkable 9th century manuscript remove "remarkable"; is POV. Also, I think the prose in that para can be strengthened. In fact, it isn't made clear how the para fits in with the rest of the section.
 * Reply OK, cut remarkable. Let's have "unique" instead.
 * on Christmas Day in the year 800 AD: use 25 december to make things simpler (unless there is special significance why on that day itself it took place).
 * Yes, highly significant, to an essentially Christian congregation, the event taking place on Christmas Day would have been doubly symbolic of God's gift of right to reign.

Charlemagne’s political successors continued to rule much of Europe - that doesn't make sense to me- is that after Charlemagne's death? unification of that country- "that country" refers to the kingdom of germany or the holy roman empire? And what's the sudden mention of the Normans? its learning and technology lost - improve prose on that. Reply I'll look at it
 * Shouldn't the paragraph about the Europe-wide movement of the peasants and workers be cited?

Probably
 * A great number of these buildings, both large and small, remain. add a "to this day" to that to remove ambiguity. In Cologne, then the largest city north of the Alps, a very important group of large city churches survives largely intact. - That needs a complete rewrite. Also list a few of the Crusader Kingdoms.

Yes
 * The Monasticism section has only one out of three paras dealing with architecture at all. Instead combine the first 2 paras (also removing the trivial details) and expand the third para, esp. info about how the monasteries had a powerful influence over the design and layout of churches and other monasteries.

Reply I'll look at this
 * How come the pics seem unrelated to the text next to it? There is no mention of The Romanesque Abbey of Senaque or St. Andrew's Church, Kraków anywhere in the article.

Yes St Andrew's was added by an enthusiastic Polish contributor. I would love to write much more about the Romanesque architecture of Poland, of which some fine examples appear to have survived, but what I have in my library (in English) barely scratches the surface. Problem, trying to keep everybody happy....
 * "Unfortunately", and "but we have a good idea of the design" - change those. Unencyclopedic. OK
 * "The Nobility of Europe", is that very specific, and different from just the nobles? If not, remove caps from "Nobility". OK
 * "Along the route they were urged on by those pilgrims returning from the journey." Rather trivial don't you think? Gees, Mate! use yer imagination! It's not so fricking trivial if you've just walked a thousand miles in yer bare feet!
 * Also, shouldn't each of the sub-sections (except maybe Origins) have a Main Article: link?
 * Yes they definitely should
 * Thats all for now, I'll look into the rest of it later.
 * Tommy Stardust 18:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions, most of which can be applied fairly easily. Oh no, I've just found a really bad bit, but you seem to have missed it....Amandajm 17:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Conditional oppose -- no page numbers for any of the references, many of which come from extremely long books. We cannot expect that readers will hunt through an entire book to track down where statements came from. I tried without success to verify some of the facts using google books.  Calliopejen1 20:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "I tried without success to verify some of the facts using google books" is not a sensible criticism in this field, certainly without examples. Johnbod 21:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Most general statements are summarised fom a number of texts or from whole chapters. I might be judged completely wrong on this, but I believe that in many cases, citing an artwork or building as an example is an appropriate and full citation. In other words, if there is a statement that German Romanesque cathedrals often have four towers, and Bamberg and Worms cathedrals are cited, then it doesn't need a written source. They either do or don't. In general, the things that really need citation are those things that are really likely to be challenged. Amandajm 17:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: You seem to have nominated a lot of pages recently claiming they are written by architectural historians. I find this concerning as I see no well known architectural historians in the history. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia has to be beyond reproach in its claims - I would like to know who these people are and their proven qualifications (or list of publications) to be so termed. If these facts are not available I don't think the claim of qualified authorship should be made.  Giano 13:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Response, Giano, fortunately there are a number of people who are knowledgeable and professional of attitude, both qualified and otherwise, including yourself (although I have no idea which of those brackets you fall into as I know you only by your worthy contributions) who will strive to make sure that anything that achieves FA status on wikipedia is indeed "beyond reproach" regardless of whether it is contributed by the "rank amateur" or someone as irreproachable as Carlo Pedretti himself. See (NOTE: "I'm absolutely sure that we will find a slip of paper, small though it may be, which will be written evidence of the presence of Leonardo in Locarno. This in turn will allow us to prove that he designed the Visconti Castle."...I just want to be there when it's found... ; )

Amandajm 17:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.