Talk:Cathedral of the Nativity of Our Lord, Upper Clapton

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Eastern O. Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Georgia (country) Low‑importance

	Georgia (country) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

AG Walker

Done

Is the notable sculptor AG Walker the same person as Arthur George Walker? If so is it worth pointing out that he would have been a newly qualified local artist, and this commission a significant part of his career. It would be interesting to know whether this commission is omitted from his career as an oversight, as an early set of works before he mastered the art, or a commission he didn't want to be associated with after the scandals associated with the abode of love. I've had a look at Arthur George, and almost all the work now associated with him is from the twentieth century rather than the 1890s. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Apostolic Church

I'm not sure which Catholic Apostolic Church the Ancient Catholics were an offshoot of. Have linked to a dab page Catholic Apostolic Church (disambiguation). Ϣere SpielChequers 22:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chair to Altar

It would be good to track down when Smyth-Piggott's chair was replaced by an altar. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Blitz

Given how close the nearest bomb fell - just the other side of Castlewood rd it seems surprising that the stained glass survived WWII. It would be interesting to know if the windows had been boarded up or the glass otherwise protected. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

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: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article currently needs much work to be brought to DYK standards; no prejudice against re-nomination once the article is brought to GA status, and the nominator has already indicated that they are planning to do so.

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that though the building's stained glass has been described in sexist terms, the longest serving incumbent of the building originally known as the Church of the Ark of the Covenant was a woman? Source: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1235310?section=official-list-entry https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2010/10-september/news/uk/court-rules-ancient-church-is-defunct
- ALT1: ... that the Cathedral of the Nativity of Our Lord, London's only Georgian Cathedral, is Victorian?

Moved to mainspace by WereSpielChequers (talk). Self-nominated at 11:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - n
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - n
Interesting:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: As indicated by the tag at the top of this article (which was added by another editor), the article is not yet properly sourced. For example, there is no sourcing for the last sentence under the sub-heading "Statuary", or for the last clause under the sub-sub-heading "Enoch and Elijah", or for the second paragraph under the sub-heading "Stained Glass". Also, the existing referencing appears to be mostly in BAREURLS, which should be replaced with full citations. As for the hooks, it appears that the second part of the first hook is not supported by the citations, and the second hook is not accompanied by any cited source. Issues of sourcing aside, I prefer the second hook, as it is short and amusing. No qpq as yet. I think this article requires considerable work before it would be ready for DYK. Other difficulties include a lack of an infobox and the unsuitability of the photo at the top of the article (which is really of the surrounding skyline as opposed to the building itself, of which Commons has plenty of photos that could be used). The creator/nominator might want to seek assistance from WP:Christianity and/or WP:Architecture, as the subject of the article appears to be eminently suitable for Wikipedia. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Bahnfrend. I hadn't spotted that the Quid Pro Quo arrangement had shifted to include nominating articles that others had written, so I'm now on five. But not very recent ones and clearly I'm out of touch with DYK standards. Things are very different than they were in 2009. Re Infoboxes, I have carefully not added any to articles since the infobox wars. I hadn't appreciated that DYK had a local carve out from policy and that infoboxes were compulsory here. Or that the term bare links had been broadened to include refs that have retrieved dates. As for the lead image, I could of course have used other photos such as one of my own. But I'm conscious that this church is a landmark in that part of North London, and I considered that one showing the view as it dominates the Stamford Hill sky line best met the "to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page" test. The rest of the article gives much more detail on the building and its features and history. But I doubt many readers will already be familiar with much of that. As for the refimprove template, I'd added a couple of references before going to DYK, but obviously I'm not going to remove such a template on an article where I'm pretty much the sole author. I hadn't realised that the unwritten rules around DYK had moved from "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source" to "Each fact in the article must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source". Now that I've got the article to where it is, I'm aware of two other sources I haven't yet got access too, and my current plans are to get access to them in a few months and then take it to GA. Hopefully a reviewer there will remove the template. Once again thanks for the review and happy editing Ϣere SpielChequers 15:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]