# Talk:Dalby Church

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dalby Church/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 05:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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): 
Spelling is consistently in UK English, and the writing is for the most part clear and idiomatic. Unit conversions help make this accessible to a broad audience. The lead properly summarizes the rest of the article, and the layout is ok. Fiction and list guidelines are not relevant. There are some minor copyediting issues:
"Dalby and the rest of Scania was": should be were.
Fixed.
Can we get dates for the burial of Harald III and the donation of Canute IV?
I've added the burial date for Harald, but can't find any precise indication in any of the sources about the donation of Canute. I'm guessing the primary source (apparently a medieval chronicle) isn't very exact to start with.
"it may have been a pillared courtyard": should be they, not it, for consistency with previous sentences
Fixed.
"The earliest church appears to have been stylistically"..."The first church was probably": It is the earliest form of the church, right? The way you wrote it at these two points makes it seem like the building was repeatedly razed and built from scratch rather than merely modified.
I made some changes here to get away from this, I hope it works the way it is written now?
"An upper floor was added above it": the most recent previous noun is "both crypts", so what is "it" supposed to refer to?
Added "in Dalby".
"The size of the priory throughout most of the Middle Ages has been calculated to have been comparable to that of an average English Augustinian monastery from the same time.": Two things neither of which I'm familiar with are similar in size. Would it be possible to provide some more concrete estimates? As in, actual numbers? (I wouldn't remove the statement that it is similar in size to other monasteries, only supplement it to make more clear what it means.)
Very good point, I've added that it was on average 12 people in the monastery during this time.
"Traces of four of the original windows of the church remain, they are today visible on the south wall of the nave as blind arches.": please fix the comma splice.
Fixed.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
References are consistently formatted, with separate sections for short footnotes and full references. The text of the article is thoroughly sourced, from a mix of sources. The sources look reliable: a mix of academic publications and a smaller number of official government and church web sites. Because they are largely offline, in Swedish, or both, I am taking on good faith the accuracy of the claims cited to them. There is only one quotation, stated in what appears to be an accurate translation and properly cited. Earwig found nothing that even hinted at inappropriate copying.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Good coverage of the history and architecture of this structure, at an appropriate level of detail.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Only the Linnaeus quote even hints at editorialization.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
No major changes since the rewrite last October.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Commons:COM:FOP Sweden is not actually very clear on copyright of images of public structures and artworks in Sweden, but everything here looks old enough to be long out of copyright anyway, and otherwise the image tags look fine. Images are relevant and appropriate.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
This just needs some minor copyedits (see section 1, above) and I think it will be ready to pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! I've started fixing the issues above, and hope to be able to finish a bit later today. There are a few things I would like to look a bit closer at, to find the dates for the kings and the size of the monastery. Best, Yakikaki (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
After some double-checking I think I've managed to solve the last two of the points above. Happy to help if there's anything more that needs to be done. Best, Yakikaki (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
All issues satisfactorily addressed, passing. Thanks for the article and the nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)