Talk:Church of Saint George (Reichenau)

Untitled

From Prof McClanan: Bethany, You’ve made terrific progress so far, and what I’m suggesting here for revisions are largely minor fine-tunings: Since there is no general entry on the church, your entry (as in the topic list) should be Church of St. George, Oberzell, Reichenau. NB: Note though that the entry on the island of Reichenau has a little on the church, the UNESCO designation, etc. so make sure to avoid duplicating that content. Revise both in terms of mechanics and its context in Wikipedia. Therefore, benedictine monastery needs to have its capitalization fixed to Benedictine monastery but also its two parts each should be linked to the appropriate Wikipedia entries (and add links throughout of course) Add a CE after 724 Which Pope gave the relic head of St. Geo?

Wall Paintings Section: Christ is preferred over Jesus when talking about iconography like you are here Make the connections between the overall categories/zones of images and the 8 scenes more clear Since this is the most important part, as you revise you’d want to add content here and possibly trim content in the subsequent sections

UNESCO section: Not sure you need to lengthy qt, seems like a paraphrase would be more appropriate. Wikipedia doesn’t let me post links in my feedback, but I’m posting in the grade feedback in D2L for you the link to a site about paraphrasing (it’s geared for research papers, but the principle holds for this kind of research writing, too).

Damage and Restoration Sections: These two parts might work better interwoven into one section, maybe with a name like “Preservation Issues” (or something else if inspiration strikes)

Research: Overall your sources look credible and on-topic but there is nothing that seems to be particularly focused on the paintings. You might want to target a little more research to uncover more info on that part of your entry

Images: The map isn’t that informative, but the church view is a great tie-in with your content. Check out the link I posted to the grade feedback in D2L for more possible images that might augment your discussion of the paintings.

Other Notes: In addition to the other links you’ll add, when your article is live in a few weeks please go in and make a link to it from the Pre-Romanesque art and architecture entry

I'm having a hard time finding images that I can use on Wikipedia. Most that I'm finding online seem to be subject to copyright. Any suggestions? BethanyJJohnson (talk)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 September 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BethanyJJohnson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Very Good Set Up

The amount of detail and information you have found is incredible, but I think being more concise in some of the sections, like the UNESCO or restoration, maybe the title as well, would be better. They lose some relevance or significance in the article with how lengthy/wordy they are. Also, another suggestion is just to add wikipedia links on certain words like names, or UNESCO, so they lead to the pages about that topic to give the reader context without writing it in the article. The organization of your article is super great though, as well as the details, and image of the wall paintings. There are a few minor edits like "ans" in the overview, and just a few other small things like that. Overall though, all of the topics you cover, for example the eight miracles, are very insightful and relevant, so great job! Catchumall (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Chandrine's Peer Review

Your article is very good and covers many aspects of the wall paintings. Your introduction does a thorough job of setting up the rest of the article and gives a good amount of relevant background. I liked how you named the eight miracles that are painted in the church. I personally would like to see some pictures of these paintings in the article while reading it, just so I have something to reference and also because they sound like impressive pieces of art. I liked the order in which you presented your article. I was confused when I first read through as to why "Restoration" came before "Damage," but then I noticed after a second glance that it goes in a chronological order. My biggest and really only recommendation for improvement on this piece is more pictures if you can find ones that work. I know how hard it is to find pictures you can incorporate without copyright. Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article! Cstepis2 (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit 1

Added links, made minor spelling and grammatical changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by BethanyJJohnson (talk • contribs) 01:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit 2

Minor spelling changes, removed map, condensed UNESCO section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BethanyJJohnson (talk • contribs) 01:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit 3

Added a bit of content to the section on the wall paintings, combined the Restoration and Damage sections into one.

I have searched for weeks both online and in libraries and am having a very difficult time finding any more information in English on the wall paintings themselves. --BethanyJJohnson (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Prof McClanan, 12/7

Thanks for the edits, your new entry is terrific!

AMcClanan (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

4.21.19 Evaluation by Joshua Gramley

Spelling/Grammar meets/exceeds standards. Just a few very nitpicky suggestions: 1) Style guides vary considerably on when you ought to spell out a number rather than using a numeral, but I think there's general sort-of consensus on anything under 10...so you might consider replacing instances of 1-9 numerals here (e.g., "6 amusement parks") with their spelled-out version (i.e., "six") 2) Re: that Madonna...I believe you would want to hyphenate its age thus: "500-year-old" 3) There are a few spots where "also" comes up in several consecutive sentences (e.g., towards the end of Attractions, last two sentences of Culinary Tourism). You might play around with rephrasing these. 4) Might try a comma after "Nurnberg card," just to see if you like the sentence better that way.

Language meets or exceeds standards. Really beautifully written. I like your work here so much. There are a few spots the style of which leans a little bit towards something written for tourists, rather than an encyclopedia page (although I recognize, of course, that you're writing about tourism, so it's a tough balance!) Talking specifically about phrases like "with the charm of a medieval Bavarian village" and "There are hundreds of restaurants for all tastes: burgers, bars..." here; when I read them, I hear them in a Rick Steves voice :)

Organization exceeds standards. Just awesome that you built a whole section here. The organization is clear, logical, and pleasant to read. Links are really well integrated.

Coding exceeds standards.

Validity exceeds standards. All claims feel factual, well-rounded, well-sourced.

Completion exceeds standards. You have seven sources, and a whole new page section! Exceeds standards with fireworks.

Relevance exceeds standards. I think you do a really good job of describing all that Nuremberg has to offer tourists, while enlarging your readers' understanding of the fabric of the city. The only place I might suggest colors a little outside the lines of this is the "burgers, bars, steaks, pizza" part; unless there's something special about Nuremberg having these, I might suggest missing this part out, since in a globalized world, these foods are probably pretty much ubiquitous in any city of Nuremberg's size.

Sources meets/exceeds standards. It's really cool that you checked out AirBnB stats! Tells us something about the local economy and social life at the same time.

Tourism sites and travel docs are obviously catering to a specific audience with a pretty specific message, but I think that for a tourism section, they're totally appropriate.

Citations exceeds standards. So good! I don't know why I'm getting excited about this, it's just that your page is so well put together!

References exceeds standards. Everything looks good.

As you can clearly tell, I admire your work, and am inspired by your efforts here! Also, had to look up those prune people; what an interesting craft! Too bad there's no Wiki page for them...yet :) Joshua Gramley (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

4/24/19 Evaluation by GbrooksPDXStudent

• Points: 42.5

Spelling/Grammar Meets Standard: 4

A few inconsistencies and minor problems but a majority of the article has perfect spelling and grammar.

Language Meets Standard: 4

You definitely have the style and tone of a proper wiki article down.

Organization Meets Standard: 4

All separated into easy to read sections and appeal in a perfect format.

Coding Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Nothing visibly wrong in either the coding or editing of the article.

Validity Meets Standard: 4

All information appears both credible and reasonable.

Completion Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Plenty of information on Nuremberg and it's tourism scene, very well done!

Relevance Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Can't think of anything more relevant to the casual reader than detailed information on the city's tourism.

Sources Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Sources were all academic and present for the information provided.

Citations Exceeds Standard: 4.5

Plenty of sources with each of them being highly academic and well researched.

References Meets Standard: 4

References are all accounted for and in a correctly pre-defined format.

GbrooksPDXStudent (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

5/6/2019 Evaluation by DrMichaelWright

DrMichaelWright (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Points: 37.5/40
• Grade: 93.75%

Spelling/Grammar

Nearly meets standard.

• 'Franconian' should be capitalized.
• "Also offers 17 vegan and vegetarian restaurants, seven fully organic restaurants." This sentence does not have a subject.
• A few sentences are a little on the long side, but overall you write quite well.

Language

Nearly meets standard.

• The language is a bit like a tourist description, rather than like an encyclopedia.
• Regarding "...are Nazi-focused...", there is a better way to phrase this. For example, "World War II- and aftermath-focused".
• The Culinary Tourism section has the word 'also' three times. That is a bit much, and is certainly out of place in the first sentence.

Organization

Meets standard. Mostly good. I think the segment on the pedestrian zones could be renamed, since that header seems to deal with a transportation and traffic topic, while this is more about what is available in this district. Furthermore, is there one zone, or are there multiple? The header is plural, the paragraph seems to talk about one.

Coding

Meets standard. There do not seem to be code problems.

Validity

Meets standard. The information seems to be accurate.

Completion

Exceeds standard. You've definitely written a lot, which is good.

Relevance

Meets standard.

Sources

Meets standard. There is only one academic source. Beyond that you do have a good number of references. That's understandable given that you're writing about tourism, but Wikipedia itself is not a tourist guide and should have a slightly different approach to the description, and thus the sources.

Citations

Meets standard.

• Be sure to omit the spaces between the end of the sentence (the period) and the citation note.

References

Nearly meets standard.

• The ScienceDirect reference is incorrect. ScienceDirect is just the database. It is the journal, along with the author, date, & etc. which need to be written in the reference. Use the 'Cite Journal' template, from the citation menu.
• Some of the other references should mention the author, even if the author is an organization, such as the Nuremberg Convention and Tourist Office (for tourismus.neurnberg.de.