Jump to content

Talk:Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Starting GAR Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests

[edit]
  • General article requests
  1. Use a Non-breaking space between numbers and words - this code stops them being broken up. For example "100 pounds" keeps the two on the same line, always.
This was done already.Thelmadatter (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are still instances remaining where this needs doing, as there were when I wrote this. "240 years" is one. "48 seats" is another, and there are more. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK think I got itThelmadatter (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Consider using the same Citation template for all references. This keeps the references section more readable, and would be a requirement for any future FAC nomination. My preference is to use {{Citation|.....}} throughout.
I used the format shown on the citation templates. If this is not the right one, why does it exist?Thelmadatter (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have used more than one template. Doing this makes the references section untidy. Please try and use the same template throughout the article. For more information see Wikipedia:Cite#Citation_templates_and_tools Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read the page you directed me to and I have to say I dont understand what you mean by "used more than one template" I thought it was horizontal versus vertical but that is not it. I dont use notes. I need more guidance here.Thelmadatter (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-read the article and have to apologise here - I saw the presence of {{Citation}} in the template notes below the edit window and made a presumption it was used in the article, however it is not - I offer a sincere apology. Your confusion is therefore obvious and completely my fault.
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I have placed quite a few {{clarify}} templates throughout, and additional requests for citations - please fulfil these.
Working on it.Thelmadatter (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Images - Some of the images contain 'left-hand or...' - its probably best to decide upon a naming convention early in the article, and keep to it.
There is a problem with this. In the sections on the chapels, I used most of the "left-hand" /"right-hand" references because the secondary aspects of the chapel are in relation to the main altar within, not the general orientation of the cathedral overall. I think using cardinal directions here are counter-intuitive.Thelmadatter (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If on the first instance of this you could write a simple reference, perhaps <ref>When using left-hand or right-hand, this is in relation to the main altar</ref> then that will be fine. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
first instance is at the Chapel of the Immaculate Conception, and I placed the note there.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There are several instances of Roman numerals being used to indicate a century - please state a reason for this, or rectify using WP:date
Think I got these.Thelmadatter (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead

I think you should expand the lead. My rule of thumb is that mention is given to each section within the article. For instance, there is nothing in the lead about the fire of 1962.

reworked. please check
Much better, however there are some instances where items in the lead are not in the body of the article - "51 vaults, 74 arches and 40 columns" - I can't find anything expanding upon this in the article. While 'five naves' is perfectly acceptable since the article describes several of them, you should consider expanding upon the "51 vaults..." line. There are no real hard and fast rules, but if the lead summarises information about the design, one would expect to see more about this in the article. Also, there are a few minor punctuation errors that need correcting in the lead.
I dont have more information to expand on the number of vaults, arches columns and arches. Not every single feature of the cathedral is treated in the article, only those of particular interest. So some of the columns, arches and stuff would be in areas of the catheral (like offices) that are not described. Ill take suggestions as to what to do with this info.Thelmadatter (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps add a line that explains why such features were used, perhaps they were typical of the gothic design of cathedrals of that age? One more thing, are those features on the exterior or interior? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the cathedral contains a mixture of architectural styles from Gothic to Neo-classic due to the over 2-century long building period. Most are on the inside (this is based on my observations from my visits to the site) but some of the entrances have arches. I could put it in the history section basically saying that over the 200 some-odd years the cathedral accumulated x arches, x columns etc.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, remembering WP:NOR, I don't think anyone will question this, so if you could try and integrate this detail into the article that will be fine. You have plenty of images in the article and you can always point to those if anyone questions this. I don't think its massively important, but it would be nice if you could work on it when convenient.  Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aztec Temple

This contains a very long sentence - please simplify or break it up. Also, what did the Spanish use the stones for? Clarify. I think you should first give the reader a link, or write a short section on how the Spanish came to be in the region in the first place. It doesn't need to be much, perhaps a link to Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire

Rewrote paragraph.
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Church

Now I'm getting confused. Did they build a church, a cathedral, or a temple? Please clarify - it may help to use a single term throughout the article. I think you should leave mention of the church's destruction until the end of this section. 'torn down' looks like WP:Peacock.

Reworked. Was trying to use a term that would cover the first church and the later cathedral but its gone now.
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Cortés" - who is that - the article doesn't introduce him?

Done
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cathedral

"the XVIII century." - why use this type of numerology? If there is a reason you should state it, otherwise WP:date

corrected, unaware that there was a preferenceThelmadatter (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done however please see above for other instances of this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facades and portals

"Juan de Herrera (1530–1597)" - Is there any need to give the years he lived?

I dont see this.
Other facades - also, the dates given do not tally with the dates in his article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got it Thelmadatter (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bell Towers

"Ortiz de Castro was in charge of the cathedral's construction in the latter half of the 18th century, but when he unexpectedly died, Manuel Tolsá of Valencia, who built other notable buildings in Mexico City, was hired to finish the Cathedral, already 240 years in the making." - this needs to be broken up. Also, these seems to be mostly information that has been mentioned already in the Cathedral section.

Changed wording and title so that the "Cathedral section" focuses on the long process of the buildings construction and the sections focus on the details in each.Thelmadatter (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, if you could break up the sentence above that would be great. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DoneThelmadatter (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tabernacle

"The southern facade is more richly decorated" - more than what? Also, these words are in a particularly long sentence - please break this up.

Done
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Construction dates are also inscribed here." - construction dates of what?

done
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Altar of Forgiveness

"It is the first element that is seen upon entering the cathedral." - an element of what?

done
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"forgiveness in the next world." - for the next world or in the next world, before death...? Please clarify.

done
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"beyond the Altar of Forgiveness and the choir." - A choir is not a permanent fixture.

yes it is. It is the name of the elevated platform that is on medieval and renaisance cathedrals for the reading of sermons or certain passages of the Bible. See the "Other features" section.Thelmadatter (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine - but there is a wikilink to this, Choir (architecture) - consider using it on the first instance of this feature, so that others do not make the same mistake I did. Remember, I am a layman, as will be many people reading this article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wikilinked the first instance but I think we should keep the wikilink in the following section as you are right, it is a little-known concept.Thelmadatter (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the MoS that says wikilinks cannot be used more than once, so that's absolutely fine.  Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"re six royal saints: Saint Margaret of Scotland venerated in New Spain because Phillip II rescued her relics, Helena of Constantinople, mother of Constantine I and is credited with finding Christ's cross, Elisabeth of Hungary, who was one of the most venerated saints in New Spain, Isabel of Portugalknown for her charity and died a nun,Empress Cunegunda lived in chastity with her husband Saint Henry, and Edith of Wilton daughter of English royalty." - please break this up.

No real way to break this up so I simply deleted the descriptions of the saints. All have links to their pages anyway.Thelmadatter (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done


There are quite a lot of issues to resolve, so I will put the nomination on hold. Once the above issues are rectified - at that point, I shall continue reviewing the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting a good-faith effort into working on this. However, I have no idea how to "fix" the Fact/date notations you have made. All of the information in this article comes from one source or another. I used conventional standards.. a citation covers everything that comes before it until you get to a previous citation or the beginning of a paragraph. I only but in "double" citations if something is quoted. Given the Fact/date notes in here.. it almost looks like I have to put a citation at the end of every sentence!Thelmadatter (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely fine now you've explained it, and I shall remove those requests that are already referenced, however some of the references are in Spanish(?) and as a native Englishman it is difficult for me to confirm this. I haven't yet checked the reference section so I will get to this later. Give me a day or two to complete reviewing of the article, and thankyou for starting work upon it so quickly. Please do not strikethrough any text - I will do that once I am happy with your changes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand the problem with the following paragraph "In 1787, José Damian Ortiz de Castro was in charge of finishing work on the Cathedral. He did most of the work on the bell towers, putting in most of the fretwork and capping them with roofs in the shape of bells. With his death in 1793, he did not live to see the Cathedral completed, and Manuel Tolsá finished the cathedral by adding the cupola, the central front facade, the balustrades, and the statues of Faith Hope and Charity[clarification needed] at the top of the front facade. This basically the look the Cathedral has today.[clarification needed]" I dont understand why you put the clarify tags in.Thelmadatter (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its a simple matter of grammar - ordinarily if I spot such things I'll try and correct them, but in these two instances I wasn't sure that I wouldn't make a mistake. Faith Hope and Charity - I suspect there is a missing comma in there, as it stands now it looks like two statues (Faith Hope) and (Charity). The second line, "This basically the look the Cathedral has today" makes no sense - it could be missing any number of words, "is", "defines", "typifies", etc.
I changed the last sentence to express what I meant but Im not completely happy with the sentence. Minor work has been done on the cathedral since Tolsa's time, but nothing that would substantially change the overall appearance of the cathedral. This is way 1813 is considered to be the completion date. How the cathedral looked after Tolsa was done with it is pretty much how it looks today.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.  Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have the rest of the article to read but you've done a good job correcting the mistakes I've pointed out (and pointing out my mistakes too!), once we've worked on the remainder of the article I think I'll be quite happy to pass it. I have a general interest in history and architecture which is why this article caught my eye. I'll read the rest of it later today. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

continuing review

[edit]
  1. Many of the names of paintings and statues are in italics, but some are not - could you find these, where appropriate, and italicise them all? I have found a few but am by no means an expert on what is or is not appropriate.
Not an expert either. I made links to some that look like titles but are really descriptions of the theme of the work. The ones that were titles not italicized were in the 1962 fire section.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sacristy - there is an expansion tag on this section. Is it possible to expand the section and remove this tag?
This is a frustration for me. I have a pamphlet with more info but it is not citable. Im still looking, principally because Ive been in there and it is very impressive. The photo I took does not do it justice. But I dont know if I can get more information real soon. Real life, ya know.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reason the pamphlet is not citable? If it has a name, and if you know who published it, or where it is available...just enough information for anyone else to go and get one. I've cited sources that have no author or publisher details they're so old - but were contained in a library, so were fine. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK Ill go searching for it through the mess I call my apt. Im at work right now. Might take me a day or two.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough for me, I have no doubt you'll get the required information so  Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"guarded by a Herrera door. It is a mixture of Renaissance and Gothic styles" - is the door a mixture of..., or is the Sacristy a mixture of...? A simple change of emphasis may be required here.
Made changeThelmadatter (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
"Seven chapels occupy the side naves of the main hall and the other two were created..." - could you expand upon this? Perhaps "out of the sixteen chapels in the cathedral...seven occupy...with the remaining two..."
RewordedThelmadatter (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chapel of San Isidro - "Faith, Hope, Charity, and Justice" - could you give the reader a small reminder of what these are?
AddedThelmadatter (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chapel of the Immaculate Conception - "and the scene of the Immaculate Conception presides over the main part of the altar which " - I'm uncertain what 'the main part' of an Altar is - could you make this clearer?
Changed "main part" to "center"Thelmadatter (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chapel of Our Lady of Guadalupe - "Built in 1660, it was the first baptistery of the cathedral proper" - this implies that there may have been another Baptistery - is that correct, or would it be best to lose the word 'proper'?
Took out "proper"Thelmadatter (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The main altarpiece is dedicated to the Virgin of Guadalupe and the sides ones" - Side ones - presumably side altarpieces?
yes, changed wordingThelmadatter (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chapel of Christ of the Reliquias - I think generally this section is a little bit too detailed when compared to others around it. There are a couple of minor points I have but would it be possible to trim it? If you think there is scope for more information, perhaps you could create an article for it, trim this paragraph, and create a link to that article?
I took out some of the detail but its not easy. Although my citable sources dont say so, but the plaque at the church itself does, it is the most ornate and most important chapel in the cathedral.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you could make this clear to the reader - that the chapel is the most ornate and important - and provided it doesn't fall foul of WP:NOR, that will be fine. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I need more info on the sacristy and I can probably get that by taking a run back over to the cathedral, let me see if they have anything more there about this chapel.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chapel of the Holy Angels and Archangels - "Above this scene are the Holy Spirit and God, the Father" - could you find a suitable wikilink for 'God', and is it WP:NPOV to say 'the father'?
linkedThelmadatter (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"These were all later restored by Jose Torres Vergara." - do you know when by chance?
I dont. Took out the sentence.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that line was included in the reference for that section then it wasn't necessary to do that (just me being picky) but  Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chapel of Saints Cosme and Damian - "during a time when Mexico suffered from the many diseases" - earlier, the article mentions 'New Spain' - should this not also be New Spain, instead of Mexico?
Changed it but the terms tend to get interchanged. "Mexico was one of the original names of the city"Thelmadatter (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It might be an idea to have a look around the article and if you can, wikilink instances of Mexico the country, and Mexico the city, just to make that clearer.  Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chapel of San Felipe de Jesús - "This chapel is dedicated to the only martyr from New Spain, a friar who was crucified in Japan. " - is this San Felipe de Jesus? If so, could you say so?
ReworkedThelmadatter (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other features - Could you remove or work upon the expansion tag here?
Removed. I had expanded it since it was placed but I dont think Im going to find more info on the choir.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fire of 1962 - "any statues that had received more than 50% damage from pollution were taken out" - pollution from the fire, or the city?
RewordedThelmadatter (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late 20th century work - "The Cathedral, along with the rest of the city, has been sinking into the lakebed from the day it was built." - could you link this to something regarding the geology of the land, or the city?
Made the link. Fortunately I had rewritten that section of the article.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cultural importance - "The cathedral was closed for four years while President Plutarco Elias Calles attempted to enforce Mexico's anti-religious laws. " - is there a link to these laws, as they sound quite interesting?
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The Pope closed the church," - could you wikilink to the pope in question?
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The cathedral itself occasionally protests against social issues, it once rang the bells in" - the Cathedral is a building, it cannot protest against anything. Could you instead change the wording to reflect the people who are in charge of the cathedral?
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
linked to a section of the Cristero War, the best I could do as far as the laws. Linked to the guy who was pope at the time period.
  • References - a number of the references are in Spanish. Is it possible to find references that are also in English?
Afraid not. The fact that I can read Spanish is the main reason I could write this article. There is hardly anything, even in Spanish, on the web either. You would think the archdiocese would be a good source, but unfortunately it is not.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Finding references can be a difficult business. You may have some luck in libraries local to the cathedral, usually they will contain publications with information that you'll never find on the web, and even on Google Book search (I use this a lot).  Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
we are talking about Mexico and Mexico City here. Its not like the US or the UK. Library resources are scarce here in comparison... but there are a few big ones at UNAM and the Museo Nacional de Antropología but again their sources would be in Spanish, especially those dealing with the details of the cathedral. Im hoping to get to them over the winter break, Im a teacher, so Ill have a little time.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 6 [1] - is a dead link
fixed linkThelmadatter (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It works in Internet Explorer, but not on my Firefox browser. Most people use IE though so  Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 15 - is a dead link
works for me from the page.. you repeated Reference 6 hereThelmadatter (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, its reference 16 - here - doesn't work for me. I notice there is a site called www.arsvirtual.com - is there a missing '.' in the address? Although I can get to the arsvirtual site, the mexico.htm part won't work for me. I'd explore the site myself but I don't understand the language. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed link... there is an English language version of the site but it has more bugs than the Spanish version.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - although it appears to be exactly the same website as reference 6. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 18 [2] - is a dead link
Again Im able to enter.Thelmadatter (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The error I get is 'Session Cookie Error - An error has occured because we were unable to send a cookie to your web browser.'. This occurs both in Firefox, and IE - I even tried it through Proxify.com and received the same error. I'm wondering if you're able to access it because you're logged in somehow - could you clear all cookies, or try on another computer? I also asked a few colleagues around the country, they can't see it either. If the site requires a login, just write "login required" in the title part of the citation. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the correct page? Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for me, your address and my address lead to the same site so I changed it to yours. But I found a terminology problem I fixed.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 21 [3] - produces an odd message on my Firefox browser. Would you mind checking on your computer to see if you get the same problem? Once I click the message away, the page appears ok. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem withit. Any problem with Chinese-sponsored sites in your country?Thelmadatter (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. It isn't a major problem anyway.  Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

Great work on all the edits you've made. There are only a few requests remaining; the sacristy pamphlet citation (if possible), the Chapel of Christ of the Reliquias "most important chapel", and the odd problems with some of the reference links. Once these are addressed I will happily pass the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get over to the Cathedral later today and pick up what they have. Its a good walk from my house so Ill get my exercise in at the same time.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. I will pass it now. Congratulations! Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico_City_Metropolitan_Cathedral/GA1&oldid=1236816891"