Talk:Saint Peter of Alcantara Parish Church (Pakil)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:St. Peter of Alcantara Parish Church/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 19:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am starting the review and will post it within the next day or so.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Overview

See also: Wikipedia:Good article criteria

The article is interesting - particularly its history. It follows the Manual of Style for layout, sections, etc. It is not a long article, but is appropriate based on the number of available reliable sources. It does not go into excessive detail. The article is well-written with inline citations - there are some questions about the sources. The article is stable. It is illustrated with a lot of images, which might be too many for some, but I happen to like the gallery section. The images are in the public domain and have appropriate captions.

Sources

There are some questions about the sources. There are several unreliable sources (blogs, personal page, and facebook), which I've tagged with a better sources tag. Perhaps some of these sources will be helpful. And, there were several sources that have dead links, last archived on May 3, 2014.

I'll work on looking for better sources. Only ONE source needs to be improved after editing. But, what is the implication of having dead links/archived pages in the article and in the GAN? --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no implication for having dead links - It was just curious to me that they were archived off the web the same date that they were used here.

The one remaining "better source" tag is for a blog page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments and questions

• I made some minor edits, mostly adding some wikilinks, citation information, or making some minor copy edits. Some of the edits, like using a convert template are just nit-picky edits and weren't worth listing. For future reference, if you have an especially long title and subtitle in a citation, you just need the title - the subtitle (anything after ":" is not needed) and if a source is not in English, you can set a citation template parameter of "language=" with the language in which it's written.

Noted. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Do you, by chance, know whey the accessdate for several sources, added on May 3, are the same day that they were last archived?

I accessed those sites on May 3, 2014. But regarding date on when it is archived. I do not know. It happened that the Diocesan Website is unavailable for so long. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, cool. --CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• This page: http://ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/articles-on-c-n-a/article.php?subcat=13&i=24 is copyrighted and
  • There a direct copy of content of: " The altar enshrining the Nuestra Señora de los Dolores was made marble by Fr. Ronald Reagan and consecrated by archbishop Alejandro Olalia in 1959."

Reparaphased. -- Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Great.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• • And, it would be good to put "the largest and longest religious celebration" in quotations

Done. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Does "nipa" refer to Nipa palm, Nypa fruticans or Nipa grass, Distichlis palmeri - do you know? If you do, it would be nice to have a wikilink to the correct one.

I honestly don't know. Sources only says it is "nipa". (I am always being asked on what type of nipa since nipa is mainly used for make-shift churches in the Philippines during the Spanish colonial era) --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like nipa was clarified, so I added a link.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding: "The first church was constructed of bamboo, nipa and other light materials, by volunteers under the patronage of Peter of Alcantara, along with three parallel streets which Father Barajas named San Francisco, San Pascual and La Purisima Concepcion." I don't understand this sentence is seems like disparate points merged into one sentence, or am I missing something? Were the streets constructed when the church was? If so, instead of "along with" you may want to say something like "at which time..."

Reparaphased. Removed the line regarding the three streets since the source has a problem (better source is needed). --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, cool.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• What does " It was separated from Pakil and named Father Francisco de Barajas, a priest from Santa Ana de Sapa Church in Manila, as the first parish priest in May 12, 1676" mean?
  • separated from the Pakil community?

Typo error. It was separated from Paete. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, cool.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• • named for Father Francisco de Barajas?
  • who was the first parish priest of the Pakil church? the Manilla church?

Father Barajas was the first parish priest of Pakil. He came from Santa Ana Church in Manila --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, cool.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• "repaired the church" is used multiple times in the history section. Could other related terms like "reconstructed", "fixed the damage", or other options words be used in some cases?

Done! Sorry for a lot of repairs. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny.--!!!!

• The clause "In a post in social media," that has a facebook source isn't really needed and it's an unreliable source. The sentence "The Chancery of the..." can stand on its own.

It is also covered on another source, so I removed the facebook source. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• Again, a lovely article. I'll await any feedback about the review - and put it on hold for seven days in the meantime.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Great job, the only remaining item that I see is finding a better source for the personal / blog page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'll try to look for a better source regarding the architectural description of the church. The site looks like an unofficial Pakil website. Can you give me a couple of days? --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely, there's no hurry!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hi @Carlojoseph14:, It's been nine days. There's just the one remaining issue. If you're unable to find a reliable source, information attributed to that source could be removed and the article passed. Is that of interest to you? Or, if you believe the source to be a reliable source, we could ask for a second opinion. What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Please check. Edited the article. Dropped the source. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Carlojoseph14:, Looks great! I will pass it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking forward for more GA review. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)