Talk:Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 01:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * ' 'As the promotion of state atheism was part of Marxist-Leninist communist ideology, the Soviet government ordered many churches closed, including this one in 1938. A little clumsy - suggest "As the promotion of state atheism was a part of Marxist-Leninist communist ideology, the Soviet government ordered the closure of many churches, including this one in 1938.
 * Done
 * Actually, you changed it to "was part of a Marxist-Leninist communist ideology" which is completely different thing. I have now fixed it.  Please pay attention to detail.  You can't expect to get articles to GA status, with this sort of careless attitude. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 *  For a number of years during World War II, it faced the prospect of demolition, but was instead used for civil purposes, housing an institute. - "During World War II, the cathedral was threatened with demolition, but was instead used for civil purposes, as a warehouse and then a hostel."
 * Changed
 * The three-aisled cathedral, built from red bricks, "red brick", rather than "red bricks"
 * Done
 * (Russ.: Католический вестник — Свет Евангелия)  "Russian" not "Russ"
 * Done
 *  It was consecrated in 2005 already stated in the preceding paragraph.
 * Removed sentence
 * At the end of the 19th century, only two Catholic cathedrals existed in Moscow - the lead states " It is one of only two Catholic churches" - please be consistent about the use of the terms "cathedral" and "church".
 * Ok
 * ' 'and cost at that time 10,000 ruble'' - "rubles"
 * Done
 * The groundbreaking occurred in 1899, but the actual construction work started in 1901 and lasted until 1911. - "Groundbreaking was in 1899, but construction did not start until 1901 and continued until 1911"
 * Ok
 * ''The construction costed 290,000 ruble" - "rubles"
 * Changed
 * The majority of the money was given by members of the Polish parish. Other donations came from Catholic parishes all over Russia and from foreign countries, mainly Poland and Belarus - "Most of the money was donated by members of the Polish parish of Moscow. Other funds came from Catholic parishes throughout Russia and from foreign countries, mainly Poland and Belarus."
 * Changed
 * The article needs a thorough line by line copy-edit by someone familiar with good written plain English. Word choice and grammatical construction throughout are poor. Examples cited above are just from the first few paragraphs, but flaws are evident throughout.
 * It already received copyedits by two editors familiar with good written plain English. I made few changes . It would be nice to know more examples.
 * At the time it was on the mainpage, many users have made copyedits. ♫GoP♫ T C N  11:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well obviously the copy-editors used previously were not competent. You asked for more examples:
 * here are a few, but the prose is in very poor shape throughout. If you cannot see the errors yourself then you need to enlist the aid of someone who can.
 *  With city's permission another mass took place
 * Reworded
 * was officially recognized in 31 May 
 * Changed to "acknowledged"
 * Meanwhile parts of church were subleased
 * I think there should be a comma after meanwhile
 * Added "the"-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 17:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * signed an assignment in 1 February 1992
 * Changed to decree
 * while others started clearing the truss.
 * While other?
 * The decision was predated on 7 March, and arranged an evacuation of the building by the institute by 1996.
 * Reworded
 * In a meeting with Polish Ambassador Stanisław Ciosek in 15 March 1995, acting mayor of Moscow, Alexander Musykantski, assured him that the return of the church would be complete by the end of the year.
 * Reworded
 * Subsequently, the institute director asked the parish priest for a final extension the removal date by two weeks,
 * Added "of"
 * In March 2002, members of the cathedral and Catholics from other European cities participated in a rosary led by the Pope by video conference.
 * Reworded
 * Alike the buttresses, the first ten steps leading to the portal 
 * removed "leading"
 * Consistency in units: 65 m, each with lateral arms 13 m long and then three-metre bright rose window Use the convert template.
 * Converted; all units now consistent-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 11:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a stone crucifix and a holy water font, on each side on the entry.
 * Reworded
 * ''and on the right side an anniversary of the church medal ???
 * Reworded
 *  Latter were fitted out with benches until the closure of the church in 1938; unlike today, the left side reserved for women, the right for men
 * Done
 * As I said very poor throughout and I haven't got to the end. Find someone competent to help you. It is not the reviewer's job to copy-edit the article, you should do that before nomination.
 * The lead should fully summarize the article, see WP:LEAD. Architectural details section should be summarized in the lead
 * Yes, but the lead should include the most important aspects from the text. I believe there should be as less information as possible, as the majority is interested in the building's history, not the architecture. Also, most won't understand terms, such as pinnacle, buttress, lateral arms, etc. This will make reading difficult.
 * Suggest you read WP:LEAD very carefully and then implement it.
 * I did and I stand by my position. The lead should include only the most notable information. As you can see, the lead contains the most important aspects from the architecture section, eg built from red brick in Neo-Gothic style; short summary of the organ; influenced by Milan Cathedral and Westminster Abbey; etc. If this cathedral would have unusual architectural elements, I would reconsider, but as this is not the case, I don't know what you espect me to include.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 11:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would expect a brief architectural description of the church in the lead, rathermore than it is built of brick.
 * The prose is still poor, you need to find someone to help you who can write good English
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * ref #9 "Newspaper "Russkaya Mysl", released in 16 March 1995. " - use a better format such as cite news with the additional parameter |format=Subscription required.
 * Done
 * Be consistent in stating the language of the source
 * Done
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Good coverage without unnecessary trivia
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * A neutral point of view is maintained.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article is stable
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The caption for File:Catholic Cathedral Moscow Before Renovation 3.jpg says "Prayers in the temporarily adapted church (around 1993)." but the image shows just unoccupied seating
 * This is incorrect-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 11:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes there are three people sitting down, but nothing that indicates prayers. Suggest you change it to just "Interior of the temporarily adapted church (around 1993)."
 * I see the caption has been changed but I don't think it works. You have to examine a large version of the picture to see the people.  They are not obvious in the thumbnail.
 * Otherwise, captions and licenses are OK
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for a thorough copy-edit to clean up the prose. A few other minor fixes need and the lead needs to include a summary of the architecture section. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, it is just the poor prose that is holding this up. I shall take another look at the end of the week. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The prose remains poor, the lead does not fully summarise the article, a minor caption poitn. Not listed at this time.  Please get the artcuile cipy-edited by someone else, as it is obvious you cannot see the errors.  Then take it to peer review before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)