Talk:Timoleague Friary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The description is entirely subjective. Radiant! 15:19, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Timoleague Friary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ceoil (talk · contribs) 02:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well written and the sourcing mostly fine (more later), but you are missing an archecture section, that could maybe similar to that in Kilcrea Friary. Am traveling atm, but could add from Keohane next weekend...I think you have this book also? Ceoil (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May be helpful for this: Mooney, Canice (1957). "Franciscan Architecture in Pre-Reformation Ireland (Part III)". Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland. Ceoil (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for taking a look at this. Yes I actually had the exact same thought yesterday, and as I was passing, I stopped and got a booklet for the friary which I've just used to start the architecture section. I'm going to mine the booklet, and then I'll turn to the Keohane which I do indeed have in my possession. Xx78900 (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great additions, and will get back to the review over weekend. Kinahan and Crowley both have harv reff errors. Also, the lead seems disproportionately small compared the body of the article...maybe beef it up. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • whose feast day was celebrated down to the seventeenth-century. - from when, and should "down" be "until".
  • The friary is a National Monument in State Care (#21) and its RMP (Record of Monuments and Places) number is CO123-050002-.[4] It is listed as a discovery point on the Wild Atlantic Way.[5] - not very appetising....#21 & CO123-050002 are jarring numbers and best left for infoboxes. Say why its a "on the Wild Atlantic Way". Or maybe praise it o its merits and not assume the reader knows what the Wild Atlantic Way is. Ceoil (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've redone the lede section. I removed the bit about the 17th-century - it was there before I started editing the page and I never adjusted it. Unsourced and I unnecessary. I removed the numbers. I left in the Wild Atlantic Way, because I think that point of information has merit, but I didn't explain what the WAW is. Not because I think it shouldn't be explained, but I couldn't think of a concise way of doing so, without derailing the entire sentence. It's a hard thing to define - "on the Wild Atlantic Way, a coastal route encompassing the west coast of Ireland and marked with various points of interest" seems like... a lot. Thanks. Xx78900 (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a post script aside, think you made a good choice re the Wild Atlantic Way. Myself and my two brothers all married Americans, and when the in-law visit they all want to visit the "Wild Atlantic Way", its obv been a huge marketing success (vs the ring of kerry in the 80s), so its prob safe to assume general readers will have some knowledge or grounding. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - I’m going to be away until Monday, but I’ll implement those (and any further) changes then. I’m not the most in-the-know about Harvard referencing, we used MLA in college. What needs to change? Xx78900 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its not a big deal, its just that the anchors in the refs are different to those defined in the sources...I might have a look later. Another thing, should "Historical artefacts" come after "Archecture"...Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed the order. I see the issues but don't know how to fix them. The Kinahan reference's years of publication are being interpreted as a name because it's a range. And I have no idea why the Crowley reference isn't anchoring. Xx78900 (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I cant figure it out either. Anyway, would like to do another read through, and hopefully finish this out in the next few days. The article is great. Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No rush whatsoever, take your time. And thank you. Xx78900 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a pass from me, on a friary have often visited and been long interested in, nice work on doing service to its wiki entry. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the review! Xx78900 (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS re the cite errors, would suggest you request help on one of the technical noticeboards or from somebody you know is clued up in this area. No doubt, all you need is a 10 to 15 character string in the sources htlm to tell it to ignore the usual, default anchoring naming convention. But as I say, don't do cite templates and that stuff is double Dutch to me. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-FAC notes[edit]

From a quick scan, before a proper re-read.

  • The lead is quite short, given the article overall is 2641 words. Your likely to get a few archecture specialists at FAC, so would add a few sentences on its layout. I think the prose could be doubled here, a lot in the main article not mentioned in the introduction, and bear in mind, 90% of readers will stop at the lead.
  • Expanded, but I feel very uncertain about it, definitely in need of review.Xx78900 (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, have been toying, but its a good start; lets see just before the nom. Ceoil (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reposition Timoleague Friary Window.jpg as its squashing the text between itself and the lower part of the infobox.
  • The img captions could be more descriptive or precise (ie the X feature seen from the Y vantage point)
  • Done. I wonder if the gallery should be kept? It was there when I first started working on the article and I never removed it. What do you think?Xx78900 (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh keep it please! Although you could reposition the images closer to the relevant text. Remember this is essentially an archecture page, and am thinking of asking for a look from KJP1, our eagle eyed resident expert on these matters. And maybe Guliolopez who also knows a lot, and is especially good at finding puffery. Ceoil (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay no problem. There are a lot of photos of the abbey, I might have a look through and see if there are better ones. Xx78900 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flow: You sometimes follow very long sentences with very short ones. Break up the long ones where possible.
  • Are the chalices really called the first and second chalices? Should it just be the Dale-Browne and Timoleague Franciscan Chalice.
  • So it's not that they're called the first and second chalices, but most sources (not all) that write about either one of them seem to be unaware of the existence of the other, and thus label the one that they're talking about "The Timoleague Chalice". On that, the only question I have so far about the edits you have made to the page is removing info about the chalices. Are you sure its inappropriate?
  • Refer to them by their their dating, ie the earlier and later. Ceoil (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About the trimming: the article is already top-heavy on the chalices. Would prefer more focus on the archecture. Ceoil (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to include "earlier" and "later". Do you want to cut more off of the chalices? I'll extend the architecture section over the next few days.
  • No don't cut anymore. Any chance of photos of either? I'll be in Dublin on Friday and could go to Collins Barrick's if its on display. Have you checked it their are free images on Flicker? Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually based in Dublin for this year and have just returned this evening. I might pop out tomorrow and see if I can get a photo. I haven't checked Flicker, and amn't familiar with it - is it a repository of images that are exclusively copyright free /fair use / creative commons, or do you have to be discerning? Xx78900 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try and avoid single sentance paragraphs.
  • I have removed one of these. I'm not sure how to remove the other two still present: one is in the history section, and immediately follows a quote about the destruction of the town. Should I move it to the next subheading down? The other, in architecture, doesn't fit the other paragraphs but I will try and expand the description of the rooms mentioned over the coming days.Xx78900 (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best not to start consecutive paragraphs with "In 19xx".
    Altered.Xx78900 (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • — (4 February 2014). "Machtnadh an Duine Dhoilghiosaich". What does — mean. Should it be Ó Coileáin, Seághan
  • It's referring to Beatrix Farber, who wrote the page in question, wherein Seághan Ó Coileáin's poem can be found. Given that I was using the reference to mention translations, I thought it more appropriate to mention the page author as opposed to the poem's author. I can change if needs be.
  • When did the French gift St Molaga's Head.
  • I will be able to check later tonight.Xx78900 (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great. And add any other info you can find as its quite a hooky paragraph. Do we have a pic of it? Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't unfortunately, and would you believe I was in Timoleague this morning... up in Dublin now for the foreseeable and not sure when I'll be back. I know the stone and can get a snap in future, thought to be honest it is an unremarkable lump of rock - absolutely no traces remain of the carving to the naked eye anyway. Xx78900 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately the Crowley source, which is the only one that mentions Molaga's head, doesn't provide even the century when it was gifted. Xx78900 (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Spittal, a nearby townland, there was a leprosarium, and......a bit story teller-ish
  • Okay, do you think I should remove it or reword it? I thought it was necessary exposition to the "Leper's hole", but if not, I can get rid of it.Xx78900 (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it just men it could be rephrased to be a bit less "folky" (or droll). Ceoil (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, I'll change it now. Xx78900 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try and avoid cites in the lead; if the claims are restated in the body, place the cites there.
  • More shortly. Ceoil (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Citations have all been moved to the body Xx78900 (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for looking at this - I'm busy this weekend but I'll start reviewing and altering from Monday.Xx78900 (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. Ceoil (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldnt use block quote for "We burnt all the towne, and their great...". As toy said above its messy and causes probs for the following sentance, and imo creates too much white space.
  • "Writes" rather than "claims", unless you doubt Samuel Lewis (i dont know enough to evaluate, but the word claims throws a shadow.
  • Audit for repetition and synonyms: founded the abbey in 1312.[13] The friary's
  • It's referred to pretty equally as an abbey and as a friary in the literature, which I tried to reflect in the article by using both. If consistency is preferred, I'm happy to do one or the other. It's official name per the Record of Monuments and Places is Timoleague Abbey.Xx78900 (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was thing more in terms of WP:ELVAR, maybe stick with Friary and it. Ceoil (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the (block) quote "The preservation of the abbey is mainly due to the care bestowed...." adds much not already stated.
  • Clarify: "Despite the dissolution of the monasteries in 1540 by Henry VIII '[WHEN X LEAD TO Y], the friars.."- avoid the reader having to click blue links to understand the point
  • up until the late 1580s. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, sorry I haven't been at this all week, my offline life has been manic - I should be able to potter away at this as the week goes on. Xx78900 (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I'll be gone for a few more weeks (around 2-3), but do have more to add if you can hang on. As it will be your first nom at FAC, first impressions will last, so bear with me pls. At very least we should do source and image reviews, on-top of this copyedit and comprehensive lookover. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    More than happy to hang on, I ended getting really busy IRL so it suits me better too! Xx78900 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think the block quote ties in nicely with the previous one, to show how attitudes changed towards the Travers family and their care for the Abbey, but I can remove it if you really think that's more appropriate. Xx78900 (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, this is not a hill I'd die on, and tbh maybe its just that I dislike block quotes; fussy and create too much white space. I'm more or less done complaining about prose, although there are a few gripes outstanding. A source review to follow, but as I say, not shortly. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section title "In culture" isn't right, as it implies pop songs, comics, etc. Ceoil (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timoleague_Friary&oldid=1199794534"