Jump to content

Talk:Basilica of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (Atlanta)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

{{Cv-unsure|1=— [[User:Eoghanacht|<span style="color:green;">''Eoghanacht''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Eoghanacht|<span style="color:gray;">talk</span>]]</sup>|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sacred_Heart_Basilica&oldid=380926073|date=August 2010}}


A large section of text was added that reads like someone simply copied a church guide pamphlet. I moved this under a section header called "Building." It is unreferenced. — Eoghanacht talk 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This copyvio was cleaned in 2013. MER-C 18:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Building

[edit]

The building section needs to contain sections for easy reference. The article is hard to read.Questionable pulse (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basilica of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (Atlanta). 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:

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) 02:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by JJonahJackalope (talk). Self-nominated at 17:02, 2 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 article. Hook is interesting, QPQ is done, and the article is 5x expanded. Im genuinly shocked at how much you expanded the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Basilica of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (Atlanta)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 09:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Pleased to pick this up and sorry you've waited so long. A quick preliminary review doesn't suggest any Quick Fail issues, and two readings of the article suggest that it will certainly meet the GA criteria. I'll leave comments over the next few days and will ping you when I'm done. Happy for you to respond to the comments piecemeal, or to wait until I've finished. Any queries, we can discuss here. KJP1 (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

I tend to list queries/issues at the start in a chornological fashion, and then fill in the below template as I go. Hope this is ok?

Infobox
  • A preference, not a criteria point, but is there an façade image without a car! This, [1]?
    • Changed image to one with a clearer view of the facade of the building.
Lead
  • All good.
Parish of Saints Peter and Paul
  • "On April 6 of that year, the parish saw its first baptism on April 6 1880 - remove unnecessary repetition.
    • Removed unnecessary repetition.
Establishment of Sacred Heart
  • "asked the Marist Fathers to help in the diocese's efforts in Atlanta and their missions in north Georgia" - assuming the missions belonged to the diocese, rather than the Marists, I think it should be "its missions".
    • Changed "their" to "its".
  • "the cost significantly exceeded the amount that had been raised by the Marists" - overspending on church building in the Victorian era was very common. Do any of the sources indicate how the shortfall was covered? Presumably by the wider Catholic Church? No matter if not, it would just be interesting.
    • Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find too much information concerning the shortfall or how it was covered in the sources.
  • "Maybelle Stephens Mitchell, a noted suffragist" - link suffragist?
  • "Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church was established within Sacred Heart's parish territory as the first "non-territorial" Catholic church in the city, as it was established to serve the..." - could we drop the second "was established" to avoid repetition?
    • Rephrased sentence to avoid repetition.
Late 20th century
  • "National Register of Historic Places / Landmark Building" - I wonder whether a couple of footnotes would help the reader here? I know you have the bluelinks, but a couple of sentences on what the NRHP is, and what Landmark Buildings denote may be useful. Also, see similar comment on "minor basilica" below.
    • Edited sentences to add more context for what these lists are.
  • "the church was the target of an arson attack" - any discussion of the motivation for the attack in the sources? Sadly, churches are prone to such activity but it can be interesting to know the whys of a particular case.
    • Unfortunately, I didn't find too much information on the specifics of the arson attack in the sources I found.
Elevation to minor basilica
  • "minor basilica" - as above, I think a brief explanation as to what a minor basilica is/why the designation is significant, would be helpful. Either in the main body, or in a footnote.
    • Edited sentence to include more context regarding the status of minor basilica.
Architecture and design
  • Is there a little more that could be said about the architecture? I'm thinking especially of the interior, of which, incidentally, we appear to have no images, either here or in Commons. Has no Wiki editor entered with a camera? Are they banned? All the more reason for a brief description. Oddly, I see the Landmark Building listing designation only discusses the exterior. What does it look like inside? What decoration does it have. What does the stained glass depict? This [2] gives us a little; while this [3] suggests that the font may be of interest, and this [4] indicates quite a grand organ.
    • Unfortunately, I was unable to find any image of the interior of the church on Commons. I do not believe that the church interior is "off-limits" to Wikipedians, I simply believe no Wikipedia editor has been inside the church and taken pictures of it, though any currently living in Atlanta or stopping by may be able to do so. (I lived in the city for several years, but never made my way into the church, though I did take a few exterior photos years ago). For the article, I added a bit of information from the Archdiocese of Atlanta's website, though I am always cautious to use primary sources such as that in this way. Additionally, I did not include any information from the smugmug link above, as it does not appear to be a reliable source.
Marist College
  • Looks fine.
References and Sources
  • I have spot-checked all that I can access, those being:
Harrison (11,20) / Jackson (37) / Keiser (7) / Kunkle (9) / Mitchel (8,21) / Poole (6) / Reed (19) / Wirth (36). All these check out. One comment / one query:
  • Jolissaint - this is cited as a Source but I can't see where it's used?
    • Removed the Jolissaint source and move to "Further reading". The document has some information that may be of interest concerning the basilica and adds some further context to Catholicism in Atlanta, but is not used to cite any specific statement in the article.
  • Links to Google - I personally like blue-linking the Sources, but if you are ever thinking of FAC, some editors very much don't! But I have taken to linking to Worldcat, rather than Google, as some editors disliked linking to a commercial site. I could see their point. Not a criteria point, of course, so up to you.
    • I think for now I will leave them linked to the Google Books addresses, but in the future, if I were to submit to FAC, I may change.


  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    Prose is fine. I have made some minor copy edits, here [5]. Revert any you don't like, or where I've introduced British English into a US article. On this point, do you not use the squiggle in façade?
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    All good.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    All good.
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    Sources are good.
    c. (OR):
    No OR.
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Earwig doesn't suggest any issues,[6] but I'll also do some spot-checking of sources. Spot checks of all accessible sources now done. No CV identified.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    As indicated, I think a little more on the architecture, particularly the interior, is required. Not much, but a bit.
    b. (focused):
    All good.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Not a controversial subject, but neutrally presented.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No instability.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    Images seem fine. Have you considered alt text for accessibility? Not a criteria point, but helpful for readers with access issues, and favoured at FAC.
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    As above.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

KJP1, I wanted to reach out to let you know that I have made some edits to the article to address the points you raised in your review. Thank you for initiating this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please let me know. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - all looking nice now and pleased to Pass. As you know from your 8-month wait for this, there's a severe backlog at GAN. If you have the opportunity to pick up a review or two yourself, that would be greatly appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basilica_of_the_Sacred_Heart_of_Jesus_(Atlanta)&oldid=1205791719"