Talk:Architecture of the California missions

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 22:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've linked to the original id of the article when it was made GA, but not to any id after the in-line citations were added. In my opinion, this article now passes the inline citation criteria. Carcharoth 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Architecture of the California missions/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead section of an article this size should be longer than one short paragraph.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are too few inline citations, to the extent that there are even entire paragraphs or sections missing citations entirely. Some of this material needs verification. The language is also unencyclopaedic at times, and can give the impression of original research, for instance: "No study of the missions would be complete without some discussion of their extensive water supply systems."

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lampman (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Since nothing has been done to improve the article over the last week I will delist it as a GA. Lampman (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"alike" vs. "identical"

While no two missions are "identical", they are "alike" in that they use the same building materials and similar architectural style. I have fixed this in the lead. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Architecture of the California missions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050513212743/http://www.californiamissions.com:80/ to http://www.californiamissions.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Convento

According to Miriam-Webster, "priest's quarters" and convento are synonymous: [1]. These are listed separately in the 'Site selection and layout' section; I don't know how or if this should be corrected. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)