Template:Did you know nominations/St. Augustine Parish Church (Bay)

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

St. Augustine Parish Church (Bay)

(

)

~~... that the first Bay Church was made of bamboo and nipa and was built along the lakeshore of Laguna de Bay?~~

Created by Carlojoseph14 (talk). Nominated by Shhhhwwww!! (talk) at 19:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC).

New enough, not long enough. Needs 134 more characters. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 19:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It now has > 134 chars more Victuallers (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

New enough and just long enough. No close paraphrasing seen in online sources. No QPQ needed for non-self-nomination.
I was looking around Google and Google Books for more information about the architecture of the church and its national historical landmark status, and was surprised not to find anything. Isn't it mentioned in guidebooks? I'd also like to mention that it was hard finding anything about the church under the name St. Augustine Parish Church (Bay). My searches turned up churches in England and San Francisco rather than this one, so I moved the page to St. Augustine Parish Church (Laguna), which seemed to generate more hits. But maybe that is inaccurate? Perhaps "Philippines" should be in the name somewhere?
Regarding the hook, the location of the church should be included. Also, nipa needs to be disambiguated – do you mean Nypa fruticans (Nipa palm) or Distichlis palmeri (Nipa grass)? Yoninah (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding references, there is certainly a very few sources for this type of article and for cultural heritage in the Philippines as a whole. Historical markers are the most common source of the information. If the title will be St. Augustine Parish Church (Philippines), following WP:COMMONNAME, it should be given to San Agustin Church (Manila) since it is the most common and known St. Agustin Church in the Philippines. With the concern on disambugating nipa, there are no references citing what species of nipa was used. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A view. OK its tricky to find extra information. I know because I had to add the extra bits. It would also be nice to know the species of Nypa but we describe objects as "wooden" without knowing the precise species of timber. The Phillipines is a country and Augustine is not an obscure saint. It seems unlikely that this is the most important, but I guess wiki rules would allow it to dabbed in the simplest way. The key point here is that this simple little article needs a review. Please assist. Victuallers (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is new enough and long enough. The hook citation did not work for me so I added another. I also added a wikilink for "nipa". The article is neutral and I identified no copyright issues. The submitted image was not used in the article so I have taken the liberty of substituting the one that is used which is in the public domain. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this from the prep area and reopen this nomination, because the hook is not adequately sourced. Source 1, dioceseofsanpablo.com, is not active (you get a general page from Sedo, the webhost apparently). Source 2, [1] is a wordpress source where the actual information about the hook comes from Wiki Pilipinas. So we don't have a reliable source for the hook, and this can't go on the main page. Worse, it seems very probable that the information is simply wrong, and has been a mixup with the San Agustin Church (Manila). Fram (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Article is not a mixup with San Agustin Church (Manila). These are too different structures/buildings. The article really needs good sources, as stated in the previous comments. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Carlojoseph14, as this article was created by you, you're the logical person to supply those reliable sources, particularly for the hook. Please reply here if you add them to the article. If you don't have them, then it doesn't seem to me that the article can qualify for DYK. I realize that you didn't nominate the article, but as the nominator is not participating, it's left to you to determine what happens next. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, edited the article and added reliable sources. I would like to change the hook.

ALT1: ... that the first church of Bay was constructed from cane and nipa by the Augustinians? --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Carlojoseph14, changing the hook is fine. (You might want to wikilink "nipa" to match the article.) While checking the new hook in the article, I noticed some redundant phrases in the History section. After doing a copyedit, the article is now 1474 prose characters, too short for DYK (it will need further expansion). I also noticed that one of the sources, biyahero.net, is a "travel portal", and as such is unlikely to be considered a reliable source. As the bulk of the second History paragraph is sourced to that site, a new source will be needed for that information. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the phrase, "under the patronage of St. Augustine" should be kept since not all Augustinian parishes are established under the advocacy of St. Augustine. Regarding the travel site, only one line is source to that. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right about "patronage"—I hadn't realized that meant Augustine was the "patron saint", rather than it simply being an Augustinian-run church. I'm glad you restored it. The travel site remains an issue; if it's not reliable, then it simply shouldn't be used as a reference, and material sourced to it should be removed. I'm sorry, but information needs to be verifiable, and that requires reliability. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed the line sourced to the travel site. It is now less than 1500 char. So, I think, we need to close this nomination.Carlojoseph14 (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

6 weeks of tweaking? Pity to give up now, we don't have enough articles here. If someone could translate the plaque in the picture then we would have another reliable source. The article is over 1500 chars again Victuallers (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The marker/plaque is already included as a source in the article. Although, some editor, would consider it a primary source. Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Article is now again above 1500 char. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

New full review needed; issues raised in Fram's pulling of the hook from prep should be checked in the course of it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is now over 1500 char and appears stable. The page creator has provided a new foreign-language source for the ALT1 hook which is AGF, answering Fram's concerns. (Thanks for disambiguating the nipa link, too!). All refs cited in the article are RS. This nomination is new enough, long enough, adequately referenced, no close paraphrasing seen in English-language sources. No QPQ needed for non-self-nom. ALT1 hook ref AGF and cited inline. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

By ALT1 do we mean ALT2? I can't see an ALT1 (though my glasses are broken). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's ALT1 and I corrected it above. Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)