Wikipedia:Peer review/St. Peter's Church (Queenstown, Maryland)/archive1

St. Peter's Church (Queenstown, Maryland)
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to upgrade it to Good Article. I will get more photos later in August.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Review
Hello. I've just submitted an article for review and I'll be happy to review this one in return. Hope to begin soon. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, first off there was a serious problem with two online sources which are insecure, one of them actually generating a critical warning. Another site, the National Register, is resource exhaustive and impractical for reference purposes by users of this site. I've removed all three linkages. You will need another citation for the 1980 registration date and you will have to think what to do about the NHRP reference as it was this site generated the critical warning. The third source is not needed as another one provides the reference. I'll set this aside for the moment and hope to continue tomorrow. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The NRIS reference you removed is a standard reference in tens of thousands of articles. The NPS appears to have a maintenance issue with the certificates messed with the database setup yet again, which does not mean that the reference (and the tens of thousands of others for other NRHP properties) should be removed, please don't remove standard formatting and sources unless you have a workaround. The National Park Service, which administers the National Register of Historic Places and NRIS, has notoriously erratic IT, and things like this happen every now and then, but it's the authoritative resource. The Maryland MTA reference works just fine. I do agree that the NPS link with instructions to scroll down is awkward, but that's what NRIS is for, when it's working.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The NRIS reference is a known issue that several editors are working on - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. It will probably take some time to resolve, and it ought to be a global fix rather than a local fix just for this article. While that makes it impossible to get this article as presently constituted to GA - or for that matter any article on a National Register property that uses the standard formatting and referencing formats, leaving the reference as is will allow the reference to be part of the (soon-to-come?) global fix via bot. A workaround has been mentioned at the project talkpage. I'll try it out when I get a chance to figure out where the database has been stashed, and perhaps that can allow a proper review to go ahead. But right now the scary warning is just that, and there is no actual dangerous link in the article.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the explanation. Lets hope a solution can be found. I'll carry on with the review later as this is just a watchlist scan. Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Given the problems with the NPS and the NRIS, it does seem that a GA nomination would be futile if those references are necessarily included. I realise now that it is a widespread issue not confined to this article. I've read the article and looked at the overall sourcing as well as considering various criteria that will be relevant at GA. If the reference issue can be resolved, I would think this article has a good chance of success at GA. It is well-written, in scope, uses summary style, no problems around OR or NPOV or edit conflict. Very good images. It's fine. I would recommend that you try to get around the reference issue by asking if those points are absolutely necessary or if other sources can be found, perhaps in reference works at your local library. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)