Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Boljoon Church

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: promoted by HalfGig talk 13:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Boljoon Church

[edit]
(
)

Church of Boljoon in Cebu

Created by Carlojoseph14 (talk). Self nominated at 14:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

  • Long enough 5838 characters, new enough created 2 January, sourced which appears reliable, QPQ done, fact is relatively interesting, no obvious copyvios although the DYK entry is essentially a quote from the author which I am a little unsure whether should be allowed. As far as I can see its good to go although the the admin moving to queue may be wise to double check themselves.Blethering Scot 19:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The quote is a little unwieldy, and we don't put links in quotes, either. Perhaps another alt will work:
  • ALT1: ... that the folk art seen on the choir screen and pulpit (pictured) of the Boljoon Church is known as "Filipino Baroque"? Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with having a new alt hook. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed for ALT1. Yoninah (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The references don't confirm that the folk art on the choir screen and pulpit are known as 'Filipino Baroque'. They describe the church as having a 'distinct Filipino Baroque style' and that the 'retablo' as being "a pseudo-baroque rococo style", which means that ALT1 is unable to be conclusively confirmed using the cited references. Dan arndt (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • With that, could we go to the original hook? --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fine with me. But the long quote is still unwieldy. I changed it in the article and added some more information from the source. How about:
  • ALT2: ... that a gold earring unearthed in the plaza of Boljoon Church (pictured) is the first archaeological find of its kind in a Philippine burial site?Yoninah (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The main problem with the hook is that it is totally reliant on the comments by a television presenter (i.e. that it is the 'first'), who based on the information provided I would have to question their ability to substantiate some of the comments made. If it was verified by a statement from a qualified person, such as an archeologist, or a government department or research institute, such as a university, then it would have much more validity and I would have no qualms about supporting it. I would suggest that maybe something along the lines of "...it is the only church in Cebu listed as a National Cultural Treasure..." . Dan arndt (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately the claim of being "first" is not included on the university's report. What if,
  • Whilst ALT3 is technically correct it really isn't that interesting (or 'hooky' enough). Maybe something along the lines of that it is the only church in Cebu that has been nominated as a UNESCO World Heritage site.. ([1]).Dan arndt (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • But that fact is not in the source; I removed the citation. Yoninah (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It is. We are not now referring to the line of the "first" where you remove a source. See sentence 3 and 4 of Church plaza section. (We are not anymore about the "first"). --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I respect Dan's opinion that the hook is not interesting. The hook being interesting is a subjective matter that differs based on a person's culture and interest. I don't find the church being a National Cultural Treasure or World Heritage Site nominee interesting since it is an outright fact. Let me suggest one,
  • i think that ALT4 is definitely likely to attract reader's attention - it would appear that there are sufficient sources confirming that the ground floor was used as a prison cell (although they also refer to the structure as originally being constructed as a watch tower as opposed to a bell tower but given its now a tower with bells in it, it qualifies as a bell tower). The only issue I have is the comment about pirates. The sources I've seen indicated that the room contains images of ships and that it is only one individual's (a television reporter) conjecture that the room housed pirates. It just needs an extra reliable reference to support the claim. Dan arndt (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment. In the Visayan region of the Philippines during the Spanish colonization, bell towers also served as watchtower against pirate raids. The church is part of a massive fortification. I removed the line, probably for pirates. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Based on the above I'm satisfied that ALT4 meets all the DYK criteria now. Dan arndt (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I moved (pictured) after bell tower, because the tower is seen in the picture. Thank you, @Dan arndt:, for guiding the discussion to result in a much better hook. Yoninah (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Boljoon_Church&oldid=1017702734"