A fact from Church of the Holy Archangels, Rogoz appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 February 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics 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.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
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
I was going to do a DYK review, but rewrote the description instead. You will find that all the original material has been hidden so that the references can be re-inserted at the right places in the rewritten description.
The description suffered from the problem that one often finds in descriptions that are gleaned from different sources: nothing is put together in the right order. The whole thing was a muddle that jumped from structure to material to details and back again. In the first sentence about the tower, the sentences goes "1. Tower, 2. material of roof, 3. pinnacles on tower." This is not well thought out. Decide what your sentence is about and stick to it; follow it through with more of the same.
Sequence the description logically. If you have already told the reader about the tower, then the bit about it being to the west (usually the west "end" rather than west "side") goes with the other towerish stuff, rather than further down the paragraph.
The tower is referred to as a "clock tower" and a belfry". Does it have a clock? Is it the belfry, or is the belfry a separate structure to one side of the building, containing bells? This isn't clear from what I read.
You state that the building is "unusual" for having a polygonal chancel. I would have thought that this was usual, rather than unusual, as the use of short slabs of timber lends itself to polygonal construction. Other Romanian churches typically seem to have an apsidal end. While this would be semi-circular in a brick or stone church, polygonal would be the obvious form, given the construction method of horizontal slabs.
There is a surfeit of pictures. The only justification for the use of so many images is because each one is telling part of the story that you want to convey. A dark image of the tower, when it is already shown in 3 other images is pointless.
I cannot emphasise strongly enough that it is highly inappropriate to include pictures of icons and the like, unless they are safely in an alarmed and guarded museum.
If you are going to include a gallery, then every single picture in it needs a caption that indicates why that picture is worthy of inclusion. If there are three pictures of wall-paintings, then your captions must be sufficiently informative to tell the reader more than just "The picture has murals". One image is sufficient to tell that story. Amandajm (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for improving the readability of the article. I have addressed the issues except the captions on the wall painting images as they are fragmented and I am therefore unable to describe them. I appreciate your point about inappropriate images of icons and the like and suggest contacting the user who uploaded them as they were taken from Wikimedia commons where they have been available since 2009. Sealman (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
