Wikipedia:Peer review/Round Church, Preslav/archive1

Round Church, Preslav
This peer review discussion has been closed. I'm aiming for FA status with this article. Amazingly enough, there are only two FAs on churches and both are on 20th-century designs. I'm not a native speaker so I'll very much appreciate a copyedit and some grammar fixes/suggestions. Also, I'd like to know if the article is easy to understand, if it provides the necessary context, and if it is complete and comprehensive in its coverage. Anything is welcome, really, but referencing ought to be spot on :)  — Toдor Boжinov — 20:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments from Jappalang

Lede
 * The opening sentence contains too many ideas; it can be broken into two sentences.

Background
 * "... literary impact over Slavic Europe ..."
 * "... literary influence over Slavic Europe ..."?


 * "Some of the time's most eminent Bulgarian scholars ..."
 * "Some of most eminent Bulgarian scholars during Bulgaria's Golden Age ..."

History and identification
 * "... in the year 6415 [907] indiction 14, ..."
 * It may be from a quote, but what does "[907] indiction 14" mean?
 * In light of the explanation below, might I suggest "... in the [Byzantine] year 6415 [907 AD], ..."? In reading the indiction article, it is just a year indicator and I am not certain how it would flesh the article out or help here.  If the indication was needed to help translate that time to our year (because 6415 Byzantine year does not exactly correspond to 907 AD), then I would suggest "... in the [Byzantine] year 6415 indiction 14 [907 AD], ..."  Jappalang (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Narthex
 * "... isolates two small, similar in plan parts of the atrium accessible through doors."
 * "... isolates two small parts, similar in plan, of the atrium accessible through doors."


 * "5 × 9.50 m (16 × 31.17 ft) in size, ..."
 * The Manual of Style discourages beginning a sentence with figures.

References / Sources
 * Foreign sources should also present a translation (official is preferable) of the titles.


 * Being unfamiliar with Bulgarian, what makes liternet.bg, segabg.com, dveri.bg, and trud.bg reliable sources per Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches?

Images
 * File:Preslaw Goldene Kirche.jpg
 * This was scanned from p. 196 of Stancho Vaklinov's Formation of the Old Culture VI-XI Century (1977). Thus, it is a copyright violation.


 * File:Round Church Preslav cornice Grabar1963.jpg
 * The 10th century cornice is in the public domain, but the photograph (1963) (with highlights and shadows) certainly is not. The inscriptions on the cornice are not 2D works of art, thus PD-Art does not apply.
 * I found File:Cornice from Round Church, Preslav.jpg, which has an acceptable license, and boldly put it in place of the copyrighted photograph. Jappalang (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * File:PRESLAV 04 12a.jpg
 * The uploader has uploaded other images into the public domain. It would be best for a local administrator to confirm if this photograph was uploaded with the intent of licensing under GFDL/CC.  However, I am a bit worried over the veracity of the authorship, judging from the uploader's contributions and talk page.


 * File:NHM-BG-photo2.JPG
 * Where is this photograph on imagesfrombulgaria.com?
 * This is in the template at the bottom of the article, . I have filed a deletion request for this; it is a derivative work of an unknown photograph.  Jappalang (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Overall, an impressive article. However, why is there little information on the structure's current status? It is partially preserved, so what is its standing in the Bulgarian society? What measures or legislations have been enacted to protect it? How much have been spent on its preservation? Is it undergoing restoration (which seems to be true, judging by this photograph)? That seems to be a pretty big omission of information for this structure. Jappalang (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch, that was very useful! I guess I should be paying more attention to the details of image copyright. I've removed any dubious images and applied the grammar/style corrections you suggested. Which foreign sources are missing a translation of the title?
 * As for the quote "6415 [907] indiction 14", 6415 is the year in the Byzantine calendar, 907 is the year in modern chronology (not in the quote, thus in brackets), and an indiction (linked) was a medieval unit of time. What would you suggest in order to make this clearer?
 * About the reliability of Bulgarian online sources:
 * Liternet (liternet.bg) is a publishing house which releases books both online and on paper. The source is actually a text book, and the author is a doctor of architecture.
 * Sega (segabg.com) is a national daily newspaper. The link is actually an online archive of the printed publication.
 * dveri.bg is an Orthodox portal. Its team of editors consists of theologists, historians and cultural scholars.
 * Dneven Trud (trud.bg) is a national daily newspaper, and the link is also to the online archive of the printed publication.  — Toдor Boжinov — 08:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can add on the church's current state, you're making a good point there. Best,  — Toдor Boжinov — 08:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the images you have listed above as of dubious copyright should be deleted. I've added some details on the church's status as a cultural monument and a tourist sites and some further info on its reconstruction. Do you think this side of the article is now adequately covered? Also, can you please answer my questions about the indiction quote and source name translation?  — Toдor Boжinov — 08:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See above for the indiction quote. About the current status, it looks good.  However, I am curious about "Despite not being an active church, today it is commonly used for baptisms and weddings."  It seems none of the church is covered at all, so I think "Despite not being an active church" is kind of irrelevant (unless having church sessions in the open is practiced there).  Am I right to presume that "commonly used for baptisms and weddings" is akin to how function rooms, ballrooms, and "special places" are hired to hold such events?  In that case, is it more precise to say that the ruins have become more of an attraction than of some religious site?  Jappalang (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggestion for indiction quote is excellent, I'll implement it right away. There are a few reasons why I included the "active church" bit. I suppose its tourist value does have a role in its popularity for weddings and baptisms, but you should note that in Bulgaria, Orthodox weddings (not the civil marriage thing) are not normally performed outside churches and in the open. Civil marriage takes place in special halls owned by municipalities, and the separate Orthodox ceremony is typically in a church, so that would be a major part of it. As a whole, of course, the ruins of Preslav and the Round Church are a tourist attraction, not an active religious site of any kind.
 * P.S. I'll be doing a vector drawing of the floor plan in the near future, I think it's a pretty important asset that the article shouldn't be missing.  — Toдor Boжinov — 15:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if every year (modern calender) in the article now has to be appended with AD... I do not think so, but you might want to consider it.  With regards to your plan of a vectorised floor plan, the drawing in Vaklinov's book can serve as a reference (thus alleviating any concern that there is no factual basis for the plan) for the the general shape and layout.  However, it should not be a copy of that floor plan (Vaklinov's).  That would be a clear derivative (and potentially a copyright violation).  The vectorised floor plan should come up with its own art style for the structure.  Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think adding AD everywhere would be redundant, it's only necessary in the indiction quote where it makes the whole thing easier to understand.
 * I'm aware that my floor plan should not be a copy/vectorization of any existing drawing. I'll be using Vaklinov + a few plans of the church in Nikolova as a reference, but I won't be copying them. Thanks! :)  — Toдor Boжinov — 08:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I finished my floor plan last night and I added cite IDs with links to the Sources section, so it's looking pretty sleek now. Anything else that you've spotted? :)  — Toдor Boжinov — 13:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)