Wikipedia:Peer review/Old St Paul's Cathedral/archive1

Old St Paul's Cathedral

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm not quite sure if this is the correct category, but as it is an article about a historic lost building of London in which several historic events took place, I thought it would probably be the most appropriate. Old St Paul's Cathedral has been a "Good Article" for a while, but I've been significantly expanding it recently, and would quite like some feedback as to whether there are any additions or improvements that would be required for it to stand a chance as as FA candidate. Thanks, Bob talk 19:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• Dablinks (toolbox on the right of the peer review page) shows two disambiguation links; please fix them.

• Checklinks show 2 dead links; please fix them.

Lede

• "... third longest church ..."

  I heard of largest or tallest buildings but longest (in which sense/direction) seems a bit weird. Could this be elaborated?

  Not really sure how to put it any other way. It means from end to end, in the same way that a bridge can be the longest.

• "... with the nave aisle "Paul's walk" becoming known as the centre of business and the London grapevine."

  Aside from the noun plus -ing construct, is there really a marketplace within the church (seems a bit incredible on first reading)?

  Haha, it's rather a wonderful image isn't it? It certainly appears so. I especially like the 14th century account of people firing arrows at crows nesting in the roof.

  Leads me to think of how incredulous it seems the bishop would be holding a sermon at one end while vegetable vendors and butchers ply their business at the other end, but since it is the "third longest church"... Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• "... the churchyard, St Paul's Cross became the stage for ..."

  I think there is a missing comma...

  Corrected.

Construction

• "Bishop Maurice began the building, although it was primarily under his successor, Richard de Beaumis, that work fully commenced. He was assisted by King Henry I, ... He also gave Beaumis tithes on fish ... Beaumis also gave ..."

  Note the ambiguities: who are the "he"s?

  Corrected.

• "Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester, was appointed to administer the affairs of St. Paul's, and almost immediately he had to deal with the aftermath of a fire which broke out at London Bridge in 1135, spreading over much of the city, damaging and delaying the construction of the cathedral."

  Long sentence that can likely be broken down into two sentences (also note the several segments in the second train of thought; it could be rephrased).

  Corrected.

• "Following complaints from the dispossessed parishioners, until the reign of Edward VI the east end of the west crypt was allotted to them as their parish church."

  There seems to be a missing comma, which would have made this a clearer sentence.

  Corrected.

  Umm, I do not see it... Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  I've rephrased the sentence now anyway.

• "... however, Wren judged that an overestimate ..."

  Who is Wren? He should not be introduced later in the last part of the article if earlier sections mention him.

  Clarified.

  I think it would be better to introduce him as the king's surveyor here as well. Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  Mentioned.

• "Benham notes that the cathedral ..."

  Similarly, who is Benham?

  Clarified.

• What makes John Harvey an authority on churches or architecture (state so)?

  Small note (although he doesn't have a WP page).

Interior

• "The walls were lined with the tombs of mediæval bishops and nobility. In addition to the shrine of Erkenwald, two Anglo-Saxon kings were buried inside; Sebbi, King of the East Saxons, and Ethelred the Unready."

  Source? See also issues below.

  Merged with later paragraph (and cited)

• "... with the tombs of mediæval bishops ...", "... several incidents of mediæval intrigue ..."

  Why is it "mediæval" and not "mediaeval"?

Corrected.

• "The riot was only halted by Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury."

  How did he stop the riot? Physically, with a speech, or just by showing up?

  It's not entirely clear, due to the slightly infuriating "Victorian Establishment" opinionating by Benham. (I assume the Archbishop just turned up and told them to clear off, or there would be dire consequences in the next life!)

  Well, it cannot be helped if we have no source that explains what happened. Leaving this unstruck in case someone can help. Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Several kings of the Middle Ages lay in state ..."

  A short two-sentence paragraph that could be merged with the Anglo-Saxon kings mentioned earlier or have the two ideas merged with the last paragraph.

  Merged, as above.

Paul's Walk

• "... the first reference to the nave, "Paul's walk", being used as a marketplace ... , with the bishop issuing a letter ..."

  Two noun plus -ing constructs in a sentence...

  Revised - I think it reads better now.

• Why are there spaced ellipses, and ellipses without spaces between them and surrounding words?

  Corrected (it's because that section was borrowed from the Paul's Walk article)

Decline

• Why is St Paul's Cross linked here, whereas previous mentions as Paul's Cross are not? Linking should be for the first mention of the term.

  I've put in an earlier link, although I have kept the link here as it was really in the Reformation that it became an important preaching site.

• "... the scrofulous practices ..."

  Any simpler word to describe the practices?

  Slightly disappointed to lose this!

• "... original purpose as a religion building."

  Religious building? Place of religion?

  Corrected.

The Great Fire

• "Building work on the new cathedral began in June 1675."

  Not a great way to end the story; did anyone bemoan the passing of the church? What was the new church? Did it invite comparisons with this old cathedral?

Good idea for a new section - I gather quite a lot of Londoners still regret the Wren cathedral (I don't like it much either, but that's nothing to do with it). I suppose I originally didn't want to regurgitate stuff from the main St Paul's page, but a short section with a few contemporary opinions might be good.

I have added a small section here, mainly using material from the main St Paul's page. I didn't want to go overboard, though. Bob talk 23:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fine. It does not leave one hanging over what happened next. Jappalang (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

• File:St Paul's old. From Francis Bond, Early Christian Architecture. Last book 1913..jpg

  Did Francis Bond draw this? If so, when did Bond die? If not, who is the artist? Page, publisher, location?

  I didn't upload this, so I'm not entirely sure if Francis Bond is the artist (it looks like an older engraving, if anything), but Bond died in 1918, so his book is safely in the public domain.

  Not quite; without knowing who the author is and with the book's publishing in 1913, the PD-old tag is wrong. What it can unequivocally qualify for is {{PD-1923}}, which implies public domain in the United States. Images on Commons must be public domain in both United States and the image's country of origin (which in this case is the United Kingdom). United Kingdom does not care about publishing before 1923; it is more concerned about authorship, and in this case, if the author lives beyond 1939, then the image is still copyrighted in the United Kingdom. Moving the image to Wikipedia and using {{PD-1923}} (with a {{Do not move to Commons}}) would solve this issue. Jappalang (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• File:Old St Paul's.jpg

  Who says this is a PD-old image? Bob Castle claims he is the author and he is certainly not dead beyond 70 years to have uploaded it.

  Bob, you need not put a GFDL statement here; now the issue is where can it be verified that this is Hollar's work? Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  I cannot seem to find the correct attribution for this, so I've decided to remove it. Annoyingly, the original C.17 book about the cathedral doesn't seem to have been digitised yet, so I'm not sure if this is Hollar's work or not. The little plates around the top suggest that it is. Anyway, to replace it, I've made my own "photographic reconstruction" based on a 1908 model. Do you think that works better? (best to view it at the smaller size - the scale problems are quite significant at higher resolution!)

  Unfortunately, the photographs are derivative works of the model (see commons:Commons:Derivative works). We need to know when JB Thorpe died as well (for the reasons explained in the above image). It might be that this photograph could qualify for freedom of panorama (UK rules that photographs of 3D works installed in the public do not violate the copyrights of the subject's author); however, it seems that this model's location in the museum is not permanent.[1] Jappalang (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  JB Thorpe was the manufacturer (a bit like Bassett-Lowke, for example), so it probably would have been created by unnamed craftsmen working for that firm. The UK certainly has freedom of panorama (so there's no problem in photographing, say, The Angel of the North), and if it was produced in 1908 for the Franco-British Exhibition that's over 100 years ago.

  The UK duration for copyright of a corporate (anonymous) artistic work (non-photograph) is 70 years after first publishing, 70 years after it was first made public (after 1969), or until 31 Dec 2039 (See National Archives Copyright leaflet). Publishing involves the public distribution of several copies, and as there is only one scale model, it has never been published. Since it is made public (exhibition) before 1969, it would be copyrighted until 2039. Is JB Thorpe still operating today? It would be better to contact them and establish who was the craftsman, whether he was doing a work for hire or still retains copyright, and his lifespan. Jappalang (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  If they do exist, they certainly don't have a website. I gather they were an architectural firm with a sideline in making models. It doesn't sound like they operated after WWII, though, and the only other evidence I have for their company is another Great Fire related exhibit and the 1930 model for Lutyens' abandoned Roman Catholic cathedral in Liverpool, as well as brief mentions here and here. If the Lutyens model is anything to go by, a group of craftsmen probably created the Old St Paul's model, rather than just one. The Museum of London, who own the model, appear to encourage photography for educational purposes. As it's a photograph of a model "first made public" in 1908, it would seem to qualify for freedom of panorama, though - Wikipedia has lots of pictures of public Henry Moore or Eric Gill sculptures, for example. Alternatively, I could always send an email to the museum to see what they think? Bob talk 18:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  Freedom of panorama is given only to permanent installations (i.e. the work could only or is only intended to exist at that location). Evidence to support this might be required at FAC (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tosca/archive1). As for claiming corporate or anonymous authorship, a reasonable amount of effort is often wanted (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rivadavia class battleship/archive1). Also see User talk:Elcobbola#Work for hire - UK for corporate copyright. Jappalang (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  I sent off an email to the museum earlier this evening asking about photograph permissions, etc, so I guess we'll have to see what they say as to whether it stays or goes. I'll post the reply once I've received it. Bob talk 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still waiting to hear back about this. Bob talk 23:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Still haven't heard anything back from Museum of London about this - not quite sure why they haven't replied, so presumably they're not that bothered. Bob talk 15:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:StPaul'sCross.jpg

  Who is the artist? When did he die? How else do we verify that the painting is in public domain due to 70 years after the passing of its artist (especially since the named source is restricted to members only)?

  I'll look into these on Commons.

Much of the prose is good with a few niggles above. Regarding the noun plus -ing constructs, a read of User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing could help. The non-compliance with MOS (ellipses, old characters) should be resolved. Perhaps get a non-involved editor to polish the article with a copy-edit. The image issues would become a concern at FAC. Jappalang (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a really useful review - thanks for all your suggestions. Bob Castle claims he is the author and he is certainly not dead beyond 70 years to have uploaded it. Whoops, obviously used the wrong template. "I'm not dead yet!" Bob talk 12:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have hopefully been able to implement most of Jappalang's suggestions, but feel free to make other suggestions. Thanks Bob talk 14:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've put forward a copyedit request, although somebody did wave an automated wand over it last night. Bob talk 23:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment In the first section, is this the 4th church on the hill and the fourth to house saint Erkenwald? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCopter (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, that is confusing. Clarified. Bob talk 17:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for giving it a copy edit. Bob talk 20:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Engraving of Old St. Paul's prior to 1561, with intact spire

With regards to this picture, dates have been used in a way that can only be described as a little lax.

• The caption reads "Engraving of Old St. Paul's prior to 1561, with intact spire". The implication here is that the engraving is earlier than 1561. The caption needs to state clearly that this represents St Paul's as it appeared prior to 1561.
• The alt caption reads: A 17th century engraving of Old St Paul's cathedral seen from above. The building is in a cross shape, architecturally rectangular and very long west to east, with flying buttresses along the quire. In the centre is a square central tower, which in this picture has a tall spire. The building looms over the old City of London before the Great Fire.

How do we know this is a 17th century engraving? If this is a fact, then why isn't it included in the regular caption?

• The illustration itself is taken from a book published in 1913 (the last of a series). Since the illustration is very typical of 19th century encyclopedic illustration, and demonstrates the Victorian passion for archaeological reconstruction, why does the alt caption propose a 17th century date for this artwork?

Amandajm (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment concerning length, English cathedrals tended to be very long compared with those elsewhere, possibly because of the weather, so that processions could be held inside, around the cathedral, rather than outside, as would be the case in Italy. In consequence, England produced the longest medieval cathedrals and abbeys in the world, Winchester, St Albans, Old St Paul's, Lincoln, York, Ely, Canterbury and Durham all being over 500 feet long.

"St Paul's was now the third-longest church in Europe.[11] Excavations in 1878 by Francis Penrose showed it was 586 feet (179 m) long (excluding the porch later added by Inigo Jones) and 100 feet (30 m) wide (290 feet across the transepts and crossing)."

What I want to know is this: The statement "St Paul's was now..." refers to a date in the 1300s. If St Paul's was indeed the third longest at that point in time, then which two churches were longer? Not Old St Peter's, and not the newly built Florence. Not Seville, which has the largest area, or the mighty Milan which is 515 feet and very wide. Not Cologne, which didn't have a nave. It seems a very odd statement.

In the 1600s Old St Paul's was surpassed by St Peter's, and then in the 20th century, by Liverpool. But from the early 1300s until the building of the nave of St Peter's, it must surely have been the world's longest church.

Amandajm (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. Bob talk 18:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)