Talk:Shrine of the Immaculate Conception
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Figureskatingfan in topic GA Review
 | Shrine of the Immaculate Conception has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 17, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
.svg){kind=small}
 | A fact from Shrine of the Immaculate Conception appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 October 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Did you know nomination
edit- 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 RoySmith (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the Church of the Immaculate Conception in Atlanta was rededicated as a shrine in 1954, 100 years after Catholic Church defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Source: Scharen 2004 p. 82
5x expanded by JJonahJackalope (talk). Self-nominated at 20:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC).
- Not a review, just a suggestion: If the goal is to direct eyes/hit to the article on the Atlanta church, consider delinking "the dogma of Immaculate Conception". The dogma link is likely to get more of the hits if it remains.Cbl62 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
@JJonahJackalope: Great Expansion! 
I'm going to have to assume good faith on the books and approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Shrine of the Immaculate Conception/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 19:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I will review this article. It's an interesting and beautiful building, and since I love church architecture, I'm honored to do so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This is a nice article about a beautiful building that's full of history and significance to the city of Atlanta.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- I did a spot-check on a few of the sources; from what I looked at, it looks like this article is meticuloously sourced. Nice job.
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- I'm AGF about this, since I don't know enough about the topic to review if it's broad enough. It looks likely that the editors followed the research; nice job.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Vwey stable.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Images are fine for GA, although I have one question/suggestion. There are only four images and a map; are there more images available of the building (inside and out), its surroundings, and of the people mentioned? With such a historic building, I wonder if there are free images or images in the common domain? The one article about a historic church that I successfully brought through FAC (Stanford Memorial Church), has bunches of images and it's only 120 years old. Like I said, just a suggestion, perhaps to make this article pop more.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Such an easy pass and a pleasure to read. If you could expand it a bit more, it'd be good for FAC, I think. Best of luck as you work on more sacred spaces in Atlanta.
- Pass or Fail:
