Talk:Despenser Reredos

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Despenser Reredos has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 6, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Anglicanism Low‑importance

	Despenser Reredos is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

Passed. sawyer * he/they * talk 19:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Despenser Reredos/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 19:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125 Nice to review more of your work! I plan on reviewing this article within the next 2 days. Ping me if you have any questions :) sawyer * he/they * talk 03:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Well-written

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct Passed
- Comment: I did a little bit of copyediting, but nothing major.
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
- Comment: I'd merge the "introduction" and "provenance" sections into one section titled something like "discovery and provenance", as "introduction" doesn't give much information about the content of the section, and both cover related aspects of the topic.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline Passed
reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose) Passed
- Comment: I don't have access to the main source, McFayden 2015, but it seems pretty reliable. I looked through the other main ones and they also seem quite good, and spotchecking of text-source integrity is all good as well.
it contains no original research Passed
it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism Passed

Broad in its coverage

it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- Comment: I found some information in the Stanbury source about how the reredos may have been turned into a table as a result of the Reformation - this would be a good thing to include, as it would give context for why such a historic piece of art would've been "recycled" like that. The Stanbury source in general presents quite a lot of good information.

Done. I could add more detail from Stanbury, but I want to keep the article 'encyclopedic' and not excessively detailed. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: The King source suggests different dates & influences for some of the panels, which would be good to add.

Done (text moved around to help with this). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Question: Pamela Tudor-Craig is mentioned in the text and her quote is cited to Stanbury - have you been able to access Tudor-Craig's work? I wonder if that might provide some more good information.

Checked, but her work on this topic wasn't found. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) Passed

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each Passed

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Passed

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content Passed
media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions Passed
- Comment: glad to see we have a photo of what it looked like in 1898 :)

Other feedback[edit]

Comment: The panel has been completely restored by Pauline Plummer (like the others), so that the reredos can be used in religious services. This is in the middle of the paragraph describing each panel of the reredos; I think it would be better suited to the prior paragraph.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The panels are similar to others in a Norwich church, but experts cannot conclude from this that it was made locally. Which Norwich church? Is it similar to other examples found in Norwich generally, or is it similar to a specific group of panels found in one Norwich church?

One church only, text amended accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Following its discovery in 1847, Way and a colleague, the art historian Matthew Digby Wyatt, both interpreted the altarpiece as having come from Italy. Way is not introduced in the article - needs clarification

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125 I've completed my initial review; I will continue looking over the article in case I notice anything else worth commenting on. Overall, excellent work, and thank you for your nomination! sawyer * he/they * talk 07:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues now (hopefully) addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! Looks great. Congrats :) sawyer * he/they * talk 19:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.