This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
It is requested that an image or photograph of more recent vintage be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
To me there seems to be a discrepancy between the c.1975 photo in the linked NRHP nomination, vs. the HABS photo from 1989(?). Is it the same building or not? Supposing the onion domes had been lost, then were restored in between, still can it be the same? --
doncram17:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Oh, i see, the article was created with info that applied to a different church, and while some of the info was updated, the NRIS reference number was left incorrect, and that led me astray. It was indeed a different church picture. Have corrected the NRIS reference number and added correct NRHP document link now. I think it is correct now. --
doncram18:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)reply