Wikipedia:Peer review/Maribojoc Church/archive1

Santa Cruz Parish Church (Maribojoc)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review for comments related to possible FA nomination in the future Thanks, Carlojoseph14 (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Intriguing article on a building relating to a major religion, one according to its Wikipedia article is "among the oldest religious institutions in the world", the Catholic Church. (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
3. Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Currently there are indeed multiple paragraphs, but quite skimpy in size.
4. 9 total images used in article, those will require an image review at either WP:GAN or WP:FAC, suggest you go over all those image pages and make sure all fields are filled in and all licensing checks out okay. You may want to trim down number of images used in article, to make it easier on image reviewer doing image reviews at WP:FAC.
5. Citation number 3 is tagged as unreliable source. This needs to be resolved before WP:FAC.
6. A few one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs throughout, consider expanding and/or merging them up.
7. References sect combines both harv citation notes and full references in same sect. Recommend splitting into 2 sects, Notes and then References, per models at WP:FAs including: The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.
8. All notes in Notes sect need citations, otherwise this is also unsourced info which will be a problem at WP:FAC.
9. 2013 Bohol earthquake sect, there's gotta be more sourced info in secondary sources that could be used to expand this sect from just two (2) total sentences in sect.
10. Dome -- one-sentence-long-sect is a bit questionable, could maybe be expanded or merged elsewhere.
11. Location sect should be ordered before Church history sect.
12. Features sect could be retitled instead as Building features sect, to indicate this is about the building itself, and not history or about congregation etc.
13. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply

1. Actually, the article was restored to its contents, layout by another editor after it passed GA. Here are the comments:
2. Done. The link was on the external link section.
3. Noted. Will expand it later.
4. Noted.
5. The article was restored by an editor to the its content after passing GA due to unnecessary edits. This is resolved.
6. Noted.
7. Restored to GA status history. Done
8. Done
9. Done.
10. Done. Merged with Interiors section.
11. Done.
12. How about architecture?
13. I'll edit the other sections later. Thanks for the PR. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)