Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Round Church, Preslav/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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:04, 6 January 2011.

Round Church, Preslav

 * Nominator(s):  — Toдor Boжinov — 18:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To my surprise, Wikipedia is missing a featured article on a medieval church building. The two church FAs that we have, Stanford Memorial Church and St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao, are both 20th-century buildings with active congregations and well-recorded presence. That enabled the authors to focus much more profoundly on history and to rely on much more accurate data on architecture and decoration.

The Round Church in Preslav is not an active, modern church institution; in fact, it is not comparable even to roughly contemporaneous buildings like the Notre Dame de Paris or the Canterbury Cathedral in the sense that it is an archaeological site only rediscovered in the 1920s. Data about it comes solely from studying its ruins, and the only written reference to its existence in medieval sources, while popular, is not an entirely certain identification.

I dare say that while writing this article I did the most in-depth research I've ever devoted to a single Wikipedia piece, and medieval Bulgarian churches have been a major part of my recent Wikipedia activity. I consulted the most recent, relevant and reliable sources on the topic and, where opinions differed, presented all notable points of view. It is possible that this may be the most detailed study of the Round Church available in English; I certainly did not encounter a more thorough one in my research.

The article underwent a peer review, which was rather useful despite involving a single editor (thanks to Jappalang). It also received a copyedit (I'm not a native speaker of English), for which I'm grateful to Diannaa and Bobnorwal.  — Toдor Boжinov — 18:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  00:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Images - The freedom of panorama laws in Bulgaria are quite restrictive (and something I am not totally familiar with), on what basis do you believe the images of the subject to be free? Fasach Nua (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello! Freedom of panorama refers to the free use of photographs that depict copyrighted public three-dimensional art, be it sculptures or buildings. Indeed, in Bulgarian law freedom of panorama is permitted only for non-commercial purposes (article 24, paragraph 7), which does not suit Wikipedia. As the church and its decoration were finished in the 10th century, however, in terms of copyright it is a work in the public domain. According to the same law, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author (article 27, paragraph 1).  — Toдor Boжinov — 21:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't read Bulgarian, but I am prepared to assume good faith and accept WP:FA Criteria 3 has been met Fasach Nua (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the image review! Best,  — Toдor Boжinov — 12:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Preponderence of Bulgarian language sources means a limited sources review. As far as I can see, all the sources look reliable. Here are a couple of minor issues:-
 * There are no citations to Stamov.
 * I recommend formally dividing the Sources into headed subsection for English and Bulgarian sources.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for your suggestions! I have tried to use only reliable, scholarly sources for the description and history of the church. Most of the Bulgarian references are to publications by Bulgarian universities, the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (a national institution), and by reputable printing houses.
 * I have removed Stamov because what he provides is a very brief overview, and there is no real need for citations to his work. I have also divided the sources into subsections: can you see if this is a good way to do it? Also, having done that, do you think I should remove the "|language=Bulgarian" from the Bulgarian sources listed in that subsection? I think I should leave them like that personally. Best,  — Toдor Boжinov — 12:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. With the subdivision in place the individual (in Bulgarian} messages can be removed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments. It's great that you're filling this important gap in the featured articles. I have a few comments from a first run-through:
 * Intro: "Two circular turrets mark the entrance to the proper lobby of the church." This sounds as if you are talking about an additional part of the church, when in fact I think you are referring to the narthex. I would suggest either repeating the word "narthex" or trying to combine it with the previous sentence in some way, e.g. "...the design of the church includes a wide atrium and a rectangular entrance area, or narthex, which is marked at its entrance by two circular turrets."
 * Intro: "Besides depictions of Christian figures and fauna, its interior features hundreds of drawings, and mural inscriptions in three alphabets. Texts and images on the walls of the church range from names of saints in Byzantine Greek, through letters from the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets, to images of ships." I'd combine or reorganize these sentences. Something like "It interior features hundred of examples of medieval graffiti, from images of crosses, ships, and fauna to inscriptions in three alphabets (Greek, Glagolitic, and Cyrillic)."
 * In the Bulgarian references. I would tend to transliterate at least the names of the authors (including the Cyrillic in parentheses if desired). This is usual, for instance, in American Slavic journals. It allows people who don't know Cyrillic to look up the material. I don't know what Wikipedia's guidelines on this are, though. Lesgles (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your comments! I revised the narthex part of the intro per your suggestions.
 * Can you please elaborate on your second point? The sentences are already long, so I'd like to keep them separate. In what way should I reorganize them in your opinion?
 * About the Bulgarian references: do you think I should be using Latin transliterations of the names in the footnotes (References section?). Should I transliterate everything (names of publications and publishers in Sources, for example) or just the authors? I think I should either leave everything in Cyrillic, as was done with the Chinese references in St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao (original characters + translation), or transliterate everything and leave no Cyrillic in the references (transliteration + translation), as I did with Simeon I of Bulgaria. Best,  — Toдor Boжinov — 11:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I apologize for my delay in responding.
 * Something about the logic and the repetition in those sentences doesn't work for me. I'll try to clarify:
 * "Besides depictions of Christian figures and fauna, its interior features hundreds of drawings..." How are the "depictions" different from the "drawings"?
 * "Texts and images on the walls of the church range from names of saints in Byzantine Greek, through letters from the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets, to images of ships." The "ships" seems tacked on at the end.
 * If you don't want to combine, how about just having one sentence for the images and one for the inscriptions. I propose: "The Round Church stands apart from other churches in Preslav because of its rich interior decoration, which makes ample use of mosaics, ceramics and marble details. Its interior features hundreds of drawings, depicting ships, fauna, and Christian figures. Medieval inscriptions on the walls range from names of saints in Byzantine Greek to separate letters and short texts in the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets."
 * On the last point, since this is meant for a general English-speaking audience, I would propose transliterating everything, but it's not a deal-breaker for me.
 * I hope this helps. Lesgles (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That was very helpful, thanks very much! I have reworded the last paragraph of the intro per your suggestions, and I now see your point. I've also transliterated all Cyrillic in the references using the official system (the preferred method per Naming conventions (Cyrillic)).  — Toдor Boжinov — 15:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I am satisfied with the changes made and am looking forward to seeing more articles like this in the future! Lesgles (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - this was a very engaging read for me. Thanks for writing this. A few thoughts – do you really need "in Bulgarian" when the title is in Cyrillic or the citation is under the section "in Bulgaian"? (seems obvious to me). Some images could be made larger. Side note: the intro to this FAC was what made me read this article, nice job with that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Ed and thank you very much for your support and kind words! Indeed, the "language=Bulgarian" parameters were redundant for the sources listed under the "In Bulgarian" subheading. I have a concern about the titles in References: I think I should leave "language=Bulgarian" for these because, hypothetically, some of them could be in Russian or Serbian, for example :) Best,  — Toдor Boжinov — 08:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, duh. Point taken. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments reading through now. Queries below : Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Round Church (Bulgarian: Кръгла църква, Kragla tsarkva), also known as the Golden Church (Златна църква, Zlatna tsarkva) or the Church of St John - even though the vernacular name is the most common, I'd maybe rewrite as "The Church of St John, better known as the Round Church or Golden Church,...." ?


 * The church's alternative appellation... why not just "The church's alternative name..."?


 *  The Round Church underwent partial conservation in the late 1990s and early 2000s - reconstruction?
 * Hello and thanks for your comments! I've fixed the appellation and conservation parts based on your remarks.
 * Actually reconstruction --> restoration (was original word I was thinking which eluded me) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the order of the names though: "Church of St John" is an extremely uncommon name which is never used without clarifying that the Round Church is meant. The "Church of St John" is only known through the inscirption of chartophylax Paul, and, as the church was never active in modern times, it has never been in actual scholarly or popular use. It seems to have been the formal name of the church in the Middle Ages and that's about it. Perhaps we can go with something along the lines of "The Round Church, also known as the Golden Church and, formerly while active, as the Church of St John..." so that the "saint name" fits in better.
 * Personally, I would prefer a solution similar to the wording I proposed above, with the name in the title remaining first. If you insist, however, I'll be okay with putting the "saint name" first.
 * Okay, that explanation is fine. I'll be reading and commenting more today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks and I hope you continue your prose review!  — Toдor Boжinov — 15:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * However, no church from this age in the Slavic-populated parts of the Balkans was up-to-date with contemporary Byzantine architecture. - the "was up-to date with" sounds too...funny. I knwo exactly waht you mean and there is (I am sure) another way of saying it bu i am staring at the page and my mind has gone blank. I will ask a couple of copyediting folks to take a look. PS: See User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum for a solution.


 * T he design of the Round Church is unmatched in Bulgarian architecture of the time. - I am thinking "unique" is a better word here. I am unclear on what sense you mean by "unmatched" - just "unique" or superlative?


 * ' 'As a whole, the epigraphy of the Round Church belongs to the 10th century'' - I think goes better in the first paragraph, anwhich I will do now.

otherwise looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the copyedit and the comments, that was very useful! I liked the change that Malleus Fatuorum suggested upon your query and I've implemented it. As for the meaning of "unmatched": while the superlative meaning would not be unjustified, the best alternative was "unique".  — Toдor Boжinov — 10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.