Talk:Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Hong Kong)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 16:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article sometime tomorrow. Wizardman 16:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

The two external links that go to the archives no longer work.

Removed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead could probably be expanded a bit more.

Expanded. Added a couple of sentences more. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This was not uncommon, however, as devastating fires commonly plagued the developing colony," this should be cited.

That's cited in ref 8 (which sources the entire second paragraph except for the opening sentence). I'm guessing a separate inline citation for the above sentence would be better in this case, right?

"It featured iconic twin steeples at its facade." This is located in a very strange spot in the article, between the fire and the renovation of the second church. If it's referring to the first one, move it further up in the article, or just move it to the architecture section if the second.

To clear things up, there were actually three cathedrals constructed. The first Wellington St. one (which burned down), the second one built on the same site (the one with the "iconic twin steeples") and the third (the current one built at Glenealy when a bigger church was needed). That's why I included the sentence between the fire and the construction of the present church. I only created two sections because – (1) if split, the two sections would be too brief, and (2) the Wellington St. cathedral is usually regarded as one structure because they were built on the same site. The cathedrals are usually differentiated on location, not by actual structure #. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and five years later, the construction was completed." rm the, reads better without it.

Removed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"being given an honourable mention 2003 UNESCO Asia Pacific Heritage Awards for Culture Heritage Conservation" I think a word or two is missing here.

Fixed. Added "at the". —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"obtained from the Buildings Department before" which buildings department?

That would be Hong Kong's Buildings Department. Would it still be better if I included the location? —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the article on hold and will pass when the issues are fixed. Wizardman 18:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A citation after the sentence would be ideal yes, and as long as it's just the country's itself it should be ok. Wasn't sure if it was HK or an individual city at first. Wizardman 03:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, article passed. Wizardman 15:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.