Talk:Mount St. Peter Church

Comments
This is a good start. You can add more wikilinks, and also go to pages that you link to, and link back (so that people will be able to find your article). Be sure your links are to the proper people/things. Stephen M. Young is linked to the wrong Stephen M. Young. Also, use the full name of the Bishops and be sure to link to them. They are listed (most of them). Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A few suggestions
Good work on this article. I have just a couple of comments:
 * there are a few ambiguous links that need fixing, these can be viewed here: ;
 * the References section could be sorted alphabetically by author's name;
 * the citations to the same source could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS;
 * the headings should not be capitalised as they are. Per WP:MOSHEAD, they should only have the first letter capitalised. E.g. "Taking Possession of the New Grounds" should be "Taking possession of the new grounds"; likewise "Finding A New Location" should be "Finding a new location" and so on;
 * the article would be improved with a few extra images if they could be found.

Anyway, that is it from me. Good work so far. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review
This is a very informative article. The sentence structure and variation makes it an easy read. However, there are some typos. Under "Find a new Location," the first sentence contains the word "was" (the third word) which I do not think belongs there. Also, in some parts, the use of commas could be used instead of parentheses.

Maybe some pictures could be added to show the areas of the church that were described or of the church itself.

It is a really good article; I enjoyed reading it!Clarker1 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is well written and very informative. My grandparents actually go to this church, and I myself have been there every Christmas for as long as I can remember. I appreciated how in depth you went with this article. There are a few small typos in the article. Also, in the alter server section, the book used in mass is not the bible, it is the Roman Missal. This is the book used for the procedures in the mass. I linked it to the article so you can check it out. Great article though! Benro129 (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you, Clarker1 and Benro129think about the issues raised in the GA review (below)? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with typos and the reference issue, however I would still say it is a very good article. As with the "neutral writing" issue, war heroes is a common phrase for those in the war, not necessarily her opinion. Clarker1 (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think your article is very well written. It is a good length, not too wordy but still detailed enough. Your pictures are very good and add a good touch to the article. I went through and looked at the other comments. I think the edits that you have made seem to have improved your article. I made a few grammar updates, other than that it looks great. Well done! hersh016 (talk)

supplementing the GA review

 * 1) In one of your paragraphs, cited to Fusco, you mention that the immigrant priests said mass in Italian.  My understanding is that prior to the 1960s, all priests said mass in Latin.  Not English, Italian, whatever. Sacrosanctum Concilium,  Vatican II was a big deal. Perhaps you've misread Fusco, or perhaps he has it wrong.  This should be resolved.
 * 2) priests traveling to other churchs--this was known as a circuit, resulting from a shortage of priests.  Were they really traveling on horseback in 1908?
 * 3) This sentence: In time, parishioners began returning to St. Peter, most likely because it was a church built by the hands... sounds like your guess about what was happening.  Do you have a source for this?
 * 4) Several locations in the text are not NPOV (not neutral point of view).  For example, "war heroes" Their only hope is that their children ....etc.

I suggest you go back through this with a really touch eye for the details. I agree with the GA reviewer about the paucity of sources. I was pleased to see you find a couple more sources, but I think a history of the county, and even a history of the diocese would help. There is probably a bio of Regis Canevin as well, which could provide general information about the problems faced in Catholic parishes. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You might use like this one, which combines the church and the NRHP. this  ...Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment
This is a very detailed article and it shows how much time you put into it! You wrapped everything together and made this an interesting read. Good job! Nock526 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)