# Talk:Lund astronomical clock

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lund astronomical clock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 21:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk and history look good
Images all good
Some ref errors, looks to be a spelling mistake in one of the sources:
Harv error: link from CITEREFEtheridge2015 doesn't point to any citation.
Harv error: link from CITEREFEtheridge2015 doesn't point to any citation.
Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFEtheride2015.
Fixed. Yakikaki (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
A lot of the paragraphs are really long, is there no way to cut them up?
I've divided some of the longer paragraphs. Yakikaki (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Copyvio check doesn't come up with anything, but it searches web sources in English. AGF for the most part.
Sources all reliable
For the 1423-25 in lead, I think it should be an en-dash (–) separating the dates, not a hyphen
Fixed. Yakikaki (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Coverage and prose looks good, I will look more closely at grammar soon
Is there an appropriate infobox that could be used? I'm also averse to having two top images if it can be helped
I looked into this but it seems there isn't any dedicated infobox. No other astronomical clock articles has an infobox, nor any of the articles about (other) individual clocks I looked at. I agree with the stacking of the pictures, removed one of them. Thanks for the suggestion! Yakikaki (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Reads neutral
Deeper check:
However, the two knights at the top of the clock is a detail which is not found in any of the other Baltic clocks, but is only known from the astronomical clock in Wells Cathedral in England. is confusing to read in its context. The two knights on Lund's clock haven't been mentioned earlier in the article, and the preceding sentence talks about three clocks, so a reader wouldn't really know to which it was referring. Also, "only known from" is a more technical phrasing, it could be explained more easily.
I changed the wording here and moved up most of the info about the knights to here from the decoration section. Yakikaki (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The two sentences It is also possible that it was installed in 1425, when it is known that a new, minor church bell was hung in the south tower. The clock would originally have been connected with just such a bell can be connected, and change "just such a bell" to something less flowery
Tried to fix this, hope it reads better now? Yakikaki (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps give some more detail to when and why people thought it was from the 1380s?
Added a few words about this. Yakikaki (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
In what way is it "compared favourably" - this isn't a phrasing I'd really give for a clock... does it look as good or work as good, both?
I skipped the "favourably" and just settled with compared, which I also think sounds a bit more natural, I agree. Yakikaki (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Need ref/s for In 1909 he came in contact with the architect responsible for the upkeep of the cathedral, Theodor Wåhlin [sv], who had found further pieces of the clock. The two decided to try to restore the clock, and would keep cooperating on the project for the next 14 years.
Added ref. Yakikaki (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps reorder the sentence Bertram-Larsen was at the ceremony awarded the Order of Vasa by the Swedish king for his work for clarity
Reordered, I think it's a bit better now? Yakikaki (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The clock was cleaned and renovated again in 2009–2010 is probably better as "...again between 2009 and 2010."
Thanks, changed it. Yakikaki (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
This is where the daily spectacle... - this sentence should be rewritten to introduce the Three Kings procession as if talking about it for the first time, as it is the first mention in the body of the article
Similar issue with the mention of the song later down - not otherwise mentioned in the body text. The two are only connected near the end of the article, also.
I've tried to fix this by connecting the parade and the music with the rest of the functions of the clock under "Description". I agree it was a bit muddled. What do you think of this solution, is it clearer? Yakikaki (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The actual clock, the upper part, actually shows a number of things. actually, can you actually remove, both instances of 'actual' - they don't add anything and sound like a tentative explanation
Fixed. Yakikaki (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The right side of the clock displays the hours from noon until midnight and the left vice versa - drop the 'vice versa' and just say it
Fixed. Yakikaki (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
a round ball in one end - is 'in' correct?
Hm, "at" one end is perhaps better? Yakikaki (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Ref for A metal circle divided into twelve decorated sections also rotates asymmetrically over the surface of the clock. It represents the ecliptic. Where the hands representing the Sun and the Moon cut across the outer rim of this circle, is where the Sun and Moon are currently visible within the ecliptic. needed
Fixed. Yakikaki (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The same is true for moon hand is possibly the strangest sentence I've yet read today, nice. Does it need 'the'?
Lol, I'm not sure I understand it myself. I hope it reads better now? Yakikaki (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


### Overall
on hold looks good - a few things, and I'll do a deeper prose check soon Kingsif (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps needs more consideration of structure and distribution of information. New comments indented above. @Yakikaki: Kingsif (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Kingsif for your comments and suggestions above, all of which have really helped out and make a lot of sense! I did struggle a bit with the distribution of the information when writing the article. I made some changes now so that info about all functions of the clock is presented already under "Description" in a hopefully less confusing way. What do you think? Yakikaki (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks good!  Kingsif (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for a great and very useful review! Yakikaki (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)