Talk:Church of the Saviour, Tyumen/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:Church of the Saviour (Tyumen)/GA1)
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 03:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman 03:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I read through this article, and in short, the prose is simply bad. Here are some examples:
- "According to the Kungursk Codex (p. 121), the first church of the Saviour was constructed in 1586 in the Tyumen kremlin: оn the raised town of Tyumen, July of day 29, even Chingi heareth, and the church of the All-Merciful Saviour raiseth – first in Siberia" - that can be condensed and explained more clearly.
- The original quote was in archaic language, so I tried to do the same in English.
- "in Tyumen had a side altar of the Wondermaker Sergius of Radonezh,[10] in other words: the church was restored after the fire." punctuation's all wrong, plus what's with the 'in other words' phrase added in?
- Is it better now?
- "as the church was chopped off in 1753," what?
- It was a wooden church.
- "which in November 1913 forbade reconstruction, as those will conclude very interesting artifical-architectural pieces of the northern facade and destroy beautiful platbands." no idea what this is trying to say.
- Agree and reworded.
- " but because of ungoing constructions of the new museum building on the Sovyetskaya Street, 63, the church is expected to be opened only in 2019." so it's only going to be open for one year? Worded oddly.
- Removed "only".
- "The sector of science informs, that the church of the Saviour of the city of Tyumen is under accounting and protection of the Narkompros, and therefore any damages and robbery of its outer architecture are impermissible and will be punished for violating the VZIK and SNK decrets about the protection of archaic art monuments.." doesn't seem necessary; if it is than it needs clarification, since it can be stated more clearly in 1/3 of the words.
In short, the prose is nowhere near GA status. The above is only noting some of the more serious examples. Even a simple copyedit wouldn't be enough; it would need someone to fundamentally rewrite it to be able to get near GA status. Wizardman 03:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)