Talk:St. Paul's Cathedral, Kolkata/GA1

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

Reviewer: E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) 16:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting article, however, it is overly detailed, sometimes repetitive, and needs to be edited to tighten and improve style.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Specifics, in History section, the First 2 sentences of second paragraph need rewrite.

There is still at least one citation marked as needed on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I will address the issues raised by you today. Nvvchar . 01:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have addressed the issues raised above. History section has been modified. Ref has been fixed clarifying the earthquakes events. Text has been arranged with some additional material and refs. Hope it meets your concerns. I will be happy to address any other observations you may further have on the article. Thank you. Nvvchar . 05:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I started editing it into encyclopedic shape - see the first 2 paragraphs of the history section. Feel free to continue.  I may try to return to work this page later.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As suggested, I have done some more editing in the history section and fixed ref to the tag. Nvvchar . 03:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I deeply regret that I am unable to recommend this article for GA status. Reason is architecture. The cathedral is notable for many reasons, among them the fact that it is in a group of grand imperial building erected under the Raj in a mixed style discussed in Indo-Saracenic Revival architecture, an article that itself is accused of POV.  My difficulty is that while the article's editor has done a diligent job of assembling sources on the cathedral's style, the paragraph on architectural style left me confused.  I know the catedral only form photos and do not feel qualified either improve the discussion of the cathedral's architectural style, or to put it properly into the context of the other British-era neo-Gothic buildings in the sub-continent.  But since such a discussion is crucial to a good article on this building, I fear that GA status will have to await an editor capable of handling that discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have posted the article for editing by Guild of Copy editors. Nvvchar . 04:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I wonder if it is possible to find someone who understands the British Gothic architecture of the sub-continent, who might be able to set that section into proper shape.  If you can identify anyone editing articles on India's other grand Victorian buildings, you might ask they to swing by and have a look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please the GOC copy edit here if it helps you to decide. Thanks. Nvvchar . 12:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Typical headings for a church article are
 * Location
 * History: origins, construction, major additions and repairs, events, recent usage
 * Structure: Dimensions, materials etc. of the foundations, exterior, portal, nave, apse, choir, clerestory, etc. (the builder's view)
 * Style: reasons it is classified as e.g. Indo-Gothic, comparison to other buildings, how good, bad or unusual an example it is (the critic's view)
 * Decoration: windows, furniture, pictures, statues etc.
 * Other stuff: organ, priests, burials, etc.
 * Don't know if this helps. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to, but the architecture section needs work. The first Gothic revival building in India appears to have been Bishop's College, Calcutta, 1820/1.  This cathedral was either the grandest or among the grandest Gothic revival buildings of British-era India.  At lease, in what appears to be a classical gothic style, before the segue into Ruskinian Gothic.  The architectural style of the building is so central to an article about a building that I simply cannot recommend this article for GA status until and unless the architecture is properly described and put into the context of the Gothic revival style of it's era.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * E.M.Gregory, it has been over two weeks, and no edits have been made to attempt to work toward your "properly described and put into the context" request. Under the circumstances, I think you have no choice but to fail the article for failing to adequately cover the topic (WP:WIAGA, criterion 3a, "addresses main aspects"), since you've twice stated you can't pass it. The article can always be renominated once it has been expanded to cover the material you've asked for. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)