Wikipedia:Peer review/St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery/archive1

St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery

I've listed this article for peer review because I would it to eventually be re-promoted to FA.

Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I will take this one up and post my comments by end of day today. Matarisvan (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Matarisvan

• I went through the sources first, great work on those, I must say. The only thing which stands out is why you haven't translated the source name for reference #17 (German), when you have done so for all other sources. Y Also I would recommend adding the translation of the journal name for Orlenko et al 2022, I believe the journal name is in Slovakian? Y

• For source #44, is it necessary to say "Poltava Art Museum ... named after Mykola Yaroshenko"? Are there other places with the same name? If not, this just unnecessarily lengthens the source size. Y (Done, but all institutions in Ukraine seem to be named after famous people. AM)

• How reliable is source #75? The site, Interesting Kyiv, seems to be a Tripadvisor based website. I don't think tourist guides are permitted under WP:RS, though I could be wrong. ✓ (I see what you mean, and will look for a better source. AM)

• Did you face any problems with the Klos book published by the monastery during your GA review? Usually, primary sources are not viewed positively, and FA reviewers don't like them at all. That said, if the book has gone through an editor's review or is considered the leading authority on the monastery, then it might be permitted. But you should know that FA reviewers will ask you about this. So I would suggest you put up your explanation proactively, that is, in the introductory statement for the FAC.

Thanks for this. The source wasn't queried by the GAN reviewer, and I felt happy using it for the article. I will check if anything controversial was cited using Klos and find a better source if needs be, but for uncontroversial facts I would want to keep using the book, as Klos is an authority (I have used his encyclopedia article) and the book was written more recently than some of the other books about the monastery that I have had to use. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC).

• Why not add FC Belfour's name as the translator for the 'Travels of Macarius'? I don't know why you haven't done so yet, because you have added translator's names for all other sources, might be an error of omission. Y

• Will you consider adding a link to Orest Subtelny in the von Steblau & Wynar 1975 source; Y and also in the von Steblau quote? Y

• For source #72, df.news/Spiritual Front of Ukraine, you have not specified that the article is in Ukrainian. The website does have an English version, so you should put up the English link for the article instead, if one exists. Y (but I don't think all the pages on this website are in both Ukrainian and English—this one seems not to have been translated. AM)

• Add the publisher's name for the Pokhilevich book, which seems to be Printing House of the Provincial Administration? Y

That's all for now, I will go through the main body of the article tomorrow. Matarisvan (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Amitchell125, I made a few grammatical edits, hope you don't mind. I noticed a bunch of minor corrections you could make, I've added two here for now, I will add the rest soon. Matarisvan (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• One thing I spotted is changing from i to y at different places, for example Sviatopolk and Svyatopolk. I know the Ukrainian and Russian languages differ on this, but being consistent is important, I'm sure you know FA reviewers are very picky about that. Y

• Another thing I'm confused about: what does the 68 next to Saint Barbara in the quote mean? Is it her age, an attempt to add a source gone wrong, or something else? Y (probably a footnote number from the source, now removed. AM)

• Do articles for these topics exist on Ruwiki: Lieutenant Colonel Ushakov, Simeon Church, Bohdan Khmelnytsky Monument, Volodymyr Goncharov, Three Saints Church, Church of St. Cyril. If yes, you should link to them. Y (Three links found. AM)

N Can't find 'Ruwiki' in the article... AM

• On the map, can the caption be changed to Kyiv, Ukraine instead of Ukraine Kyiv? Y
• Do we know which Cossack host drowned Grekovych? If yes, then it should be mentioned. Y

• Paul of Aleppo mentions 3 similar churches in the quote box. Are these the churches of the monastery, or other churches in Kyiv?

Y (St Sophia (the current cathedral); St Michael's; Hagia Sophia, Constantinople (!). text amended. AM)

• I don't think terms known to all should be linked, eg. nuns, printing house, looted etc. I understand linking to bell tower, refectory etc. among other religious/architectural terms but not the common terms. But this is up to you. Y

• Do we have an approximate date/period for when the western and northern aisles were built? Late 17th - early 18th century is too vague, especially when you have the exact year for the southern aisle. ✓ (Not that I can find, but I'll keep looking. AM)

• Do we have some of the photos/copies from Adrian Prakhov? We have mentioned them, so displaying at least one seems reasonable. ✓ (It appears not, the original were destroyed by the Soviets, I'll keep looking... AM)

• In the infobox, the spelling is Triochsvyatitelska, while in the 20th century section, the spelling is Trekhsvyatytelska. I believe this is a result of renaming Russian names to Ukrainian. I would add (now Triochsvyatitelska) after Trekhsvyatytelska. Y

• Covering an area of... : Do we mean the mosaics & frescoes covered a certain amount of area when spread out? If so, you should specify to avoid confusion. Y (A confusing and unnecessary detail which I couldn't find the source for, so it has been removed. AM)

• Should Mazepa be linked? If so, would the link point to Ivan Mazepa or Mazepa family? In both cases, you should mention how they came to be there, preferably in one or two lines. Y (The reliquary is described more detail elsewhere, so only a brief mention is made here, without a reference to Mazepa. AM)

• Why is the Saint Catherine article not linked for the first time in the plans section, and instead in the later rebuilding section? Y

• Are the St. Sofia's Cathedral in the plans section and St. Sophia's Cathedral in the lead, the same? If so, why the spelling change? Y

• Why use the long/short ton format only for the 8 tonnes mention? It unnecessarily complicates things. You can still choose to keep it though. Y

• Can the title for the 'Role of the monastery in the religious life of Ukraine' section be changed? I would recommend 'In modern Ukraine' as a replacement. Y (It looks a lot better now. AM)

• Is Chyhyryn Athanasius a person or a place, if the former, then why prefix his name with Bishop of, instead of Bishop? Y (Bishop A of C - I misread the translation. AM)

Great work so far, impressive.

• Consider linking to Valentyna Shevchenko's article on the Ukrainian Wiki? Y

• The article is still very big. I would suggest removing repeated details, and trimming the Demolition section to only relevant facts. ✓ (I'll check for any repetition. AM)

• On the images, I would consider removing those which are more or less the same photos from different angles. Y

&*

I believe these are all the concerns I could find. I will take another look and let you know if there is anything else. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

On images, I would suggest removing these:

1. Images 2 & 4 in the Rebuilt Cathedral#Exterior section. They are the same as images 1 & 3. Y
2. Refectory section: images 3 & 4, not very relevant. Y
3. Other buildings section: the last two images, again not very unique like the other images. N (I'd rather keep these, the buildings need to be illustrated. AM)

Books section:

• When were 4,200 books stored at the library? In the pre Soviet era? Do we have the year? Y (That's how many books there were when they were taken away by the Soviets. AM)
• Why is the Ivan Falkovskyi link dead? Perhaps a spelling mistake? Y
• I would move the text starting with 'The monastery library' and ending with 'now the National Library of Ukraine' to the start of the section, and then have the Ivan text after this in the same paragraph. Y
• 'Falkovskyi was responsible for cataloguing': I would cut this to 'Falkovskyi catalogued'. Y

I will take another look again soon. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Amitchell125, great work so far. I would suggest changing all left orientation images to right orientation, as that is the FA norm. Also, do you really believe the images of the shingle roof, the choristers cells and the one after it are so valuable to be listed? I'm not really seeing a case for them, they are normal buildings with no ornate architecture like the structures in the other images. Looking forward to your comments. Matarisvan (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Amitchell125, checking in, you there? Matarisvan (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. Regarding the moving of any images, I'm unclear where the criteria (WP:FACR} state that they cannot be placed on both sides. Plenty of FAs ignore this rule if it is the case, so I would rather leave them as they are. I feel the ones that the remaining are all valuable in terms of illustrating different aspects of the monastery.

Thanks for all your PR comments, which have helped me to substantially improve the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The criteria does not clearly say images cannot be oriented to both sides, but the reviewers will definitely flag this. I say this from experience, having received comments about this at an FAR. I would suggest you change the left oriented images to right orientation before going to FAC. Matarisvan (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait for the flaggers! AM

@Amitchell125, I would advise against that. The more the number of issues spotted by reviewers, the more likely they are to fail the review and ask you to nominate again after 2 weeks. If an article passes FA image review without any issues, that is a bonus. Regarding your point on there being no such rule against left oriented images, MOS:IMAGELOC says "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement." MOS:SANDWICH is also another MOS applicable here. Matarisvan (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Images now to be moved, thanks for your input here. AM

Glad you made the edits, you should have made them earlier, so we wouldn't have to argue and the FAC nom would have come earlier. Also I would suggest setting the Alignment parameter to centre, for the multiple images template. You have only done so for one of these, not for the rest. Matarisvan (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Y Done. AM

Two final comments: I would suggest adding the link to Liubomyr R Vynar in the sources, and adding the alt text for images in the multiple images template. Once that is done, you should close the PR and have a go at FAC. Matarisvan (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Amitchell125 comment ping. Matarisvan (talk) 09:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)