Template:Did you know nominations/St Helen's Church, St Helens, Merseyside

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

St Helen's Church, St Helens, Merseyside

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that St Helen's Church, in St Helens, Merseyside, (pictured) has been described as "the focal point of the town"?

Reviewed: Harrington-Birchett House

Created by Peter I. Vardy (talk). Self nominated at 10:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

I think we can do without the parenthetical "in its context", unless we really think readers will mistake the merry-go-round as part of the church. EEng (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. It's just that the photo did not concentrate just on the church, and this I thought this fitted the hook. But, no loss. The photo is unlikely to feature, anyway, I guess. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Review needed. EEng (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Article was created on said date (August 6). All paragraphs cited and the subject is notable. QPQ performed. The hook is properly cited but a bit dull. Could it maybe read,

ALT1 ... that the interior of the St Helen's Church, in St Helens, Merseyside, (pictured) has been described as "spatially masterful"?

By all other accounts the article is OK. Teemu08 (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

OK by me. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

New reviewer needed for ALT1 hook; also, as earlier review didn't mention neutrality, close paraphrasing, or whether picture was properly licensed for DYK, reviewer should check those as well. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure why it would need a new reviewer. Picture is appropriately licensed and the article is neutral (all reviews of the church are directly attributed to the author). Most of the article is based off of offline sources, so its mostly AGF on paraphrasing. That which is sourced to online articles is OK. Teemu08 (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

ALT1 would need a new reviewer because you created it and it has a new fact in it, so someone else needs to check it. (See WP:DYKSG#H2, which says, in part, You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article.) Thank you for supplying the rest of the review; only ALT1 now needs independent verification. If the hook is based on an offline source, then the AGF tick should be used, not the regular green one. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Confirming that the article conforms to the DYK criteria. Both hooks are sourced to a book source and are accepted in good faith, but perhaps ALT1 is more interesting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)