This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
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)Reply
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)Reply
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.
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
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.
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)Reply
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
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
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)Reply