Talk:Mount St. Peter Church/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry, I didn't see you were starting review. I'll come back later to see what you've suggested the editor do. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've had a quick read through and this article looks fairly reasonable, although I have a few minor problems that need addressing. As per my preference, I'm leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• History -

• Ref 3 which is cited three times is a 57 page pdf report. You aught to cite the page or page numbers that you are refering to.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC) - This sentence has a typo, I'm not sure what is meant: "On Thanksgiving Day 1888, with the help of Alfred E. Hunt and Charles Martin Hall had developed an experimental smelting plant on Smallman Street in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania."
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC) - This sentence states: "By 1910, the city was also the location of a car manufacturer, the New Kensington Automobile Company, and the Pittsburg [sic] Motor Car Company was producing its Pittsburg Six model in New Kensington", that looks like two car manufacturers, not one.

• • Diocese of Greensburg' -

• I was going to make several comments about this section, but it has been improved in the last hour and a half, so I've only one left:
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC) - For those not familiar with the area, what are the "four counties"?

• • Relocation of St. Peter's parish -

• The first paragraph is unreferenced. I would have expected a citation for at least the first entry (a marriage record) and for the laying of the cornerstone (or a photograph for the latter).

• • Italian anarchist movement -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC) - That {citation need} flag needs addressing.

• Finding a new location -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC) - The first three paragraphs "read" like a narrative or story. The information needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner.

• • Taking possession of the new grounds -

• Same comments.

• • News of the destruction of the Mellon Mansion -

• Same comments.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Building Mt. St. Peter Church -

• The second paragraph is OK, but the first is too wordy:
• Be ruthless: "Once again, the committee of a hundred people began meeting. They sorted out the names of all the parishioners and reactivated their fund raising efforts. They went out and collected old pledges and solicited new ones. They obtained another 1200 pledges and in time, 95 percent of these were fulfilled. In all, approximately 60 percent of the money collected came from 10 percent of the parishioners. Roughly 10 percent of the people did not give any donations".
• = Further fundraising, by means of pledges, was needed. Of the 1200 pledges obtained, 95% were fulfilled: 60% of the money came from 10% of the parishioners and 10% did not contribute. That might not be very good American English (I don't do American English), but its shorter and you can edit it how you like.

• • Rest of the article -

There is a lot of do detail in the article and it is well referenced.

• One problem is that the article is too wordy, often in narrative form, and needs cutting back.

For example: is this fact important "Cinder blocks were purchased for eight cents each"? Do we need to know they were purchased, what if they were only 75 cents for ten is that significant?

• The other problem to consider is that much of the information is taken from mostly one source - Centennial Committee 2004 - (there are others of course). With paragraphs such as "First off, they sealed the ground floor with cement and covered it with black asphalt tile. They then covered the walls and pillars with white Carrara marble. On the northeastern end of the basement they constructed a platform, also of Carrara marble, accessed by three steps. The platform was sheltered by a baldachin, and a marble altar was erected against the wall. Another marble altar was also placed so that the priest could celebrate the Mass while facing the congregation. Behind this platform is a large kitchen built to feed up to 400 people. There is also a furnace room and a large workshop to the side of the kitchen", the question arises, is this an encyclopedia or merely a copy and paste from a church publication?

Pyrotec (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing revised article, as of 23 April 2010

• History -

• One comment unaddressed above.

• Relocating and building a church by hand -

• First untitled subsection appears to be OK.

• • Acquiring materials from the Mellon Mansion -

• • Building Mt. St. Peter Church -

• Appears to be OK.

• • Fund raising -

• Almost there.

• • Raising the roof -

• Almost there.

• Opening of Mt. St. Peter Church -

• Appears to be OK.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Additions to the church -
  • The Marble Hall -

• Appears to be OK.

• • The Mount Saint Peter Oval -

• Almost there.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article has been tremendously improved since its first (unsuccessful) nomination at WP:GAN, its very well illustrated and is comprehensive in scope.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   A few minor areas would benefit from a clean up. But overall, its OK.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Very, well-illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Very, well-illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on acheiving this on your second attempt. Pyrotec (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)