Talk:Saint Peter's Church (Mendota, Minnesota)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Darth Stabro (talk · contribs) 21:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Imbluey2 (talk · contribs) 01:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Hi! I'll review this article. Keep in mind that this my first time doing a GA review so I could get some things wrong. If you want, I have two GAN waiting for a review (Eunos and Bedok MRT station).

Keep an eye out for any future comments. Do note that these comment will go under GA mentor.

I was asked by Imbluey2 to review the nomination. Look for a 🦊. My first comment is that this is one of those short pages I generally avoid reviewing, but it does what it needs to well, and the review is pretty good. Also pinging Darth Stabro. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Well written?

Grammar and clairty

Is the church in Mendota or Mendota Heights? The lead says the church is in Mendota Heights but the rest of the article (as well as its sources) says that the church is in Mendota

• The city of Mendota Heights wasn't incorporated until 1956; the church is currently in the Mendota Heights city limits by about 240 feet. Historically, it was all the township/village of Mendota; now they're separate entities. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 05:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 07:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • 🦊 I would insert a footnote somewhere.

MOS stuff

• So far, the lead is minimal. It needs to summarise the main points of the article per MOS:LEAD.
  • Done -DS
    • 🦊 This is a short article at 588 words, so the lead size at present is fine.
• No need to wikilink Augustin Ravoux in history section twice
  • Done -DS
• Wisconsin should be linked in my opinion but it wouldn't matter I guess.
• I noticed that you added subsections for the history section, which makes it more organised (good job!)

Sources

Layout

• Fix [5] please (there is a "subst:endash" that is not working)
  • Done -DS
• This really minor but in "the priests had lived in the church's attic" part in the history section, there is a space between the full stop and the citation. I suggest you remove said space
  • Done/reworked -DS
• It appears that [9] cites a blog (Forgotten Minnesota). Unless if the writer is an established subject-expert (even then, it would maybe be considered as reliable), it should not be cited because they are self-published (see WP:BLOGS for more)
  • Done -DS
    • 🦊 If Carrie Hatler were a published author, she'd have qualified as a subject matter expert.
• You should add the "news aggregator" parameter for [7] (that would be Ancestry.com).
  • Done -DS
  • The same for [11] and [12] (Newspapers.com and GeneaologyBank, respectively)
    • Done -DS
    • 🦊 This is something I don't care about until you hit FAC.
• It is recommended to add archived versions of the webpages cited in case their links are dead (use the Wayback machine from the Internet Archive)
  • Done -DS
• [1] cites the Catholic Spirit, which is the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis's news site. I don't know if it's considered to be 'reliable', I'll have to check with others.
  • Since it's only used for the date and its services, it can stay
• [6] appears to be a duplicate of [12]
  • You're right! Good catch. -DS

Copyright violations?

No copyright violations. Earwig did detect a 13.8% similarity between this article and the Forgotten Minnesota source, which is not enough for a copyright violation.

Verifiability

• For [8], you said the church was torn down in 1869 for a railroad line but in the source, it says 1896
  • Typo, whoops! -DS
• Where in [12]/[6] does it say that the church was added to the national historic register in 1975?
  • Upon further review, it actually says it was added in 1970; see the letters at the bottom of the PDF. Ping Imbluey2 ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • 🦊 Good catch. This listing was put on the NRHP in 1970, not 1975 (the first two digits of an NRHP number are the year of first listing).
• Other than that, the information presented matches with the source ([2] is unfortunately unavailable so I'll have to take your word for it)

Original research?

No original research is present

Inline sources

All information is cited

🦊 GenealogyBank clippings should be of a specific URL type to be readable to non-subscribers like Newspapers.com clippings. There's even regex you can run on prior clippings if they have a clip ID embedded in the URL. I've done this on this page. See WP:CLIP#GenealogyBank. GBank clippings are for a variety of reasons quite rare on enwiki (I have something like 1% of all public GBank clippings), so really only recently has the clipping hygiene been figured out.

🦊 Something you will want to remember in particular: there was no Star Tribune prior to the 1980s. The Newspapers.com records for it prior to then are actually the Minneapolis Tribune and predecessor titles. It is always worth checking for certain merged papers—Minneapolis is one of them prior to the 80s—the masthead accompanying the actual paper. Get in the habit of checking page numbers from source page so you have page 2B instead of 16, for instance.

🦊 I found an additional source of likely utility. It mentions a 1930 rectory fire and in turn pointed to this.

Broad in its coverage?

• Is there any information on the church's architecture, priest(s), etc? So far, the only sections it has is its history and historic recognition. Since it's the oldest church in Minnesota, I would imagine there would be some information on its architecture, priest, choir (if there is), etc. You can use the Church's website for such information, just don't quote the promotional stuff.
  • I added a smidge about architecture. Unfortunately I can't find a reliable source to cite at this time to state that the style is Gothic Revival. Given that the article is mainly about the historic church building, because that's why it's notable in the first place, I didn't figure it appropriate to add information about the modern community worshipping in the larger building next door (other than as relevant to the historic building, i.e. the fact that it is still used for weddings, funerals, etc) Thanks Imbluey2! ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. If you can find such a source, then do so. You don't have to make entire section dedicated to the architecture of the church, just put in the infobox and cite it. If not, then don't worry about it. Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 23:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      • 🦊 I agree with Darth Stabro's take. This is about a historic church building, not the present congregation.
• Looking at [10] and [11] for the church's renovation during the 70's, it does not cover the cost of the renovation, how much money it would need, how much money it received from donations for repairs, etc. However, that's considered "comprehensive" information, which is needed for a FA ("comprehensive" is different from "broad in its coverage", so you don't have to add it).
  • 🦊 You can't report what's not in a reliable source.

Neutral?

Article is neutral; represents viewpoints fairly

Stable?

It appears that this article is stable, there is no edit warring present

Images?

Copyright

All images do not violate copyright

Relevancy

All images are relevant to the subject and have captions.

Final comments

This has the potential for a GA. I'll ask a GA mentor to check if I missed anything.