Talk:Shrine of the Immaculate Conception

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

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by JJonahJackalope (talk). Self-nominated at 20:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Not a review, just a suggestion: If the goal is to direct eyes/hit to the article on the Atlanta church, consider delinking "the dogma of Immaculate Conception". The dogma link is likely to get more of the hits if it remains.Cbl62 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: @JJonahJackalope: Great Expansion! I'm going to have to assume good faith on the books and approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is . The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 19:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will review this article. It's an interesting and beautiful building, and since I love church architecture, I'm honored to do so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAGA
for criteria


This is a nice article about a beautiful building that's full of history and significance to the city of Atlanta.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the
    list incorporation
    :
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
    the layout style guideline
    :
    B. All
    reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
    :
    I did a spot-check on a few of the sources; from what I looked at, it looks like this article is meticuloously sourced. Nice job.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I'm AGF about this, since I don't know enough about the topic to review if it's broad enough. It looks likely that the editors followed the research; nice job.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it
    neutral
    ?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
    edit war
    or content dispute:
    Vwey stable.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are
    copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
    :
    Images are fine for GA, although I have one question/suggestion. There are only four images and a map; are there more images available of the building (inside and out), its surroundings, and of the people mentioned? With such a historic building, I wonder if there are free images or images in the common domain? The one article about a historic church that I successfully brought through FAC (Stanford Memorial Church), has bunches of images and it's only 120 years old. Like I said, just a suggestion, perhaps to make this article pop more.
    B. Images are
    suitable captions
    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Such an easy pass and a pleasure to read. If you could expand it a bit more, it'd be good for FAC, I think. Best of luck as you work on more sacred spaces in Atlanta.