Talk:The Abbey, Sutton Courtenay

The Abbey, Sutton Courtenay 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 23, 2020	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 13, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture: Historic houses Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).

"Registered Charity No. 278687" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Registered Charity No. 278687. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Abbey, Sutton Courtenay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 10:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to pick this up. KJP1 (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment[edit]

The article is a long way from meeting any one of the GA criteria.
The article contains copyright violations.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is unstable.

Earwig is showing a 73.8% match to this, [1], the Abbey's official history on its website. That will need to be addressed before the main review could start. KJP1 (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's down to 47.9%, which is an improvement, but still too high, I think. Earwig shows the areas of close paraphrasing. Are you able to adjust these? KJP1 (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have checked with my go-to guru on Copyvio, and they are also of the view that the paraphrasing is still too close. Given that it’s 7 days since I opened the review and raised the query, I’m afraid I’m going to close this as a Quick Fail on Copyvio grounds. This is a pity - the nominator has worked hard to produce an impressive article and, as an editor who mainly works on buildings, I know it can sometimes be difficult to avoid closely echoing the sources, particularly in relation to descriptions of structure etc. If this issue can be addressed subsequently, the article has all the hallmarks of a GA, and more. KJP1 (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, I will try work on this.Aivin G. (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Main review[edit]

1. It is well written.

a (prose):

b (MoS):

2. It is verifiable with Wikipedia:No original research.

a (references)

b (citations to reliable sources)

c (OR)

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations)

3. It is broad in its scope.

a (major aspects)

b (focused)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

5. It is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail:

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Abbey, Sutton Courtenay/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 23:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am looking forward to performing a review of this article. I see here that this article failed its first GA review, but I also see that the copyvio report is down to the 11% range, where the hits are titles (i.e., I am not seeing an issue). In addition, maintenance tags have been addressed, so I am very hopeful.

My approach is to review each section, make minor edits as I go along (links, punctuation, etc.) to save us both time and effort, and then assess the article against GA criteria. Feel free to revert edits that I make if you disagree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please scan the article for places where there are no citations at the end of the paragraph - and add relevant citations for the sentence(s) that are uncited.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction and infobox[edit]

The infobox looks good.
The introduction contains citations throughout, when per MOS:LEADCITE, to avoid redundant citations for content already covered and cite in the article - only claims or content subject to queries should be cited. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but I am calling it out because others may say something about this.

Thanks I wasn't aware of that, I've removed redundant citations.--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content looks good! I don't have any edits, but may return to this section after completing the rest of the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings[edit]

Citations are needed for content in the 1st and 4th paragraph.

Done--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am probably going to find this out shortly, but does The oldest still surviving parts of The Abbey are the north and west ranges, mean that the south and east ranges are not surviving?

I think I got tripped up by the "still surviving" part. Is that necessary?–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I've left out the 'still'.--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand Nineteenth-century accounts of the site show many inaccuracies.[4] in the fourth paragraph. Is the point that the sentences that follow are not accurate? Or just Parker also published a plan, but this was inaccurate in detail.[4]?

I guess I am just generally wondering why call out inaccurate portrayals? (not that there aren't valid reasons for doing so, I'm just not getting it - or how much of the 4th paragraph is inaccurate.)

I've changed the paragraph a bit.--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to move the paragraph about the guest house to be the 4th paragraph, since the rest of this section is about the ranges and the past?

Done--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a minor edit here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits to this section, looks good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West range[edit]

As I read this section, I am assuming that the West range is the yellow part of the "A plan of the main building (ground floor)" diagram in the Buildings section. Is that right?

yes--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by Its timber-framed north wall is also the south wall of the great hall. From the diagram in the previous section, it looks as if the north wall of the great hall is the north wall of the West range. (the wall between the parlour and the great hall).

I clarified that I'm first talking about only the service wing, which is the southern part of the west range. I also made a correction (it described the western wall not the northern wall). I changed the sentence above to: Its [the service-wing's] timber-framed north wall also supports the framework of the great hall situated north of the service wing. The south wall of the great hall and north wall of the service wing are connected on the first floor, but not on the ground floor, creating a covered passage which originally served as The Abbey's main entrance. --Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the northern doorway and southern doorway mentioned in: The stonework of the northern doorway was largely renewed in the nineteenth century. It has wave-moulded jambs, voussoirs and an ogee-scroll hood mould. The original southern doorway was less important and similar in style, but with chamfered jambs. ?

I changed northern doorway to northeastern doorway--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This confuses me, too: The east wall abuts the north range with a straight joint, while the joint of the north range with the west wall is obscured by plaster. because it looks to me like the east wall of the West range runs along the courtyard.

I changed it to The northern end of the east wall abuts the north range with a straight joint, while the joint of the north range with the west wall is obscured by plaster. - it's only about where the walls of the west range touch the north range.--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does It has a wooden floor and can accommodate up to sixty people seated. refer specifically to the great hall?

yes, I clarified it.--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the waney link.

I am guessing that I am missing something about the directions of the walls. It won't make sense to move on with the review of the north, south, and east ranges until I understand what is happening.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks for your changes to this section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North range[edit]

I added an outshut link.
Looks good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

East range[edit]

I am trying to visualize This timber framed wall is on a different alignment than the gatehouse, probably to unite with the south wall of the southeastern block, which may have been a wall around the building rather than part of a building.[17] and am a bit lost on "probably to unite... ". I am guessing the southeastern block is the part in purple in the Buildings section diagram. Does this mean that the southeastern block was built first and that is why the eastern wall angles out at the southern end? And/or it was part of an exterior wall, not originally connected to the building?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the sentence and hope it makes sense now: This timber framed wall is on a different alignment than the gatehouse, probably to unite with the south wall of the southeastern block, which originally may have been part of a wall around the courtyard before being incorporated into the building.--Aivin G. (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South range[edit]

Looks good, and helps me understand the sequence of events.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds[edit]

The section looks pretty good.
The last sentence of the 1st paragraph needs a citation.

Done--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the bottom half of the second paragraph - is "for" correct in which took care for the trees and transplanted various species? My mind says "of".

Thanks I changed it.--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made two minor edits here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Middle Ages[edit]

In The abbot of Abingdon Abbey alleged that in 1290, Solomon of Rochester had seized the goods in it belonging to the abbey. - I am not understanding "Solomon of Rochester had seized the goods in it belonging to the abbey.

Changed it to The abbot of Abingdon Abbey alleged that in 1290, Solomon of Rochester had seized goods in it belonging to Abingdon Abbey.--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A citation is needed for the last sentence in the second paragraph and the last two sentences in the third paragraph.

Done--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of links here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

College of St George[edit]

Looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modern period[edit]

Looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Astor[edit]

I added a link and made a minor edit (an-->and) in a quote here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The New Era Centre[edit]

The way that Blum died in January 1990 and Verney continued the work at The Abbey, but retired in 1985.[50] is worded, it seems that one of the dates / years may be wrong.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, must have been a mistake, I changed it to Verney retired in 1985 and Blum died in January 1990. and replaced it to the previous paragraph.--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks!

Gallery[edit]

It would be nice to get the images that are currently in a gallery into a one row format, or two compact rows, perhaps something like:

I went ahead and made the changes, which can always be reverted to the images from this version, but I think it looks a lot neater this way and doesn't take up a lot of page real estate with lots of white space. What do you think?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great! Thanks--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: } It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments[edit]

The article is very well-written and conforms to MOS guidelines. There are a couple of open comments, particularly about the West range, which will affect the review of the north, south, and east ranges. (1a, 1b)

Looked at those, and will see if the rest of that chapter needs to be a bit clearer.--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are properly formatted short citations to a bibliography and long citations. There are some instances where it is difficult to know how to verify the content. (2a, 2b)

The following are very broad. What documents / document titles? What is the nature of the information? From what time period? Is there a backup source that is verifiable?

The Abbey, Sutton Courtenay archives.
St George's Chapel, manuscript XI.1.3, Windsor
Denton Black Book ff. 42 v., 50 sqq. St George's Chapel, Windsor.
Ockenden Archive, Surrey History Centre
Rolls of Parliament, i. 58-9.
Berkshire Record Office, D/EP 7/123.

I changed all these sources to verifiable sources, or otherwise left out the information.--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication of original research, but adding citations to uncited content and providing more information about specific documents will resolve any concern. (2c)
The copyvio report returns hits for quotes, titles/names of things, and a few instances where there are only so many ways to word the portion of the sentence. There is part of one sentence that I put in quotes because it's a duplicate in the copy vio report. Otherwise, it looks good! (2d)
The article covers the major aspects of the subject. At times, it gets into a lot of detail, but that is appropriate to recount The Abbey's history and architectural details. (3a, 3b)
The article was a stub until last month when it was greatly expanded. The article has been stable since then. It is neutral. (4,5)
The images in the article are properly tagged and are relevant to the article. The images are lovely, but there are a lot of them. I offered a suggestion in the Gallery section about formatting the images so that they don't take so much space (with a lot of white border). Another option is to reduce the number of images and put them inline with text. (6a, 6b)

Done by you.--Aivin G. (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, though, a really great job on the article!–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, you got a lot done and I checked off all but one criteria! I will take a look at north, south, and east ranges now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aivin G. I just have one question in the East range section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I see that you made an edit and I am now passing the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the GA list of articles here as "Abbey, Sutton Courtenay, The" - Please make any edits that you think are fitting.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]