Holy Rosary Cathedral (Vancouver) is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the
Catholic Church. For more information, visit the
project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vancouver, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Vancouver,
British Columbia,
Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area 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.VancouverWikipedia:WikiProject VancouverTemplate:WikiProject VancouverVancouver articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
The article is very well-written and has a natural flow. It provides a good broad coverage of the subject, without going into unnecessary detail. There's great use of illustrative stories, images and quotes. It follows
Manual of Style guidelines. The article is well-sourced with inline citations, there's just one added citation needed tag. There's no evidence of original research. The article is neutral.
It is now stable, but there was some edit waring and talk-page dialogue in 2012-early 2013 regarding the "Modern day" section. I understand both sides and it seems to have settled into keeping that section, so I have no reason to question that.
There is good use of public domain images - all with proper licensing in commons. I'm not seeing copyright violations in the text, either.
Edits
There were just a couple of minor copy edits and resolution of two cs1 date errors (you only see it if you've configured to see them). See
this version comparison.
Since there were only two short citations for Thirkell - and several other books cited - I just changed Thirkell's short citations into long ones and removed the bibliography section for consistency. See
this version comparison
There's one citation needed tag that has been added.
I can't find any sources on "nothing serious [arising] from the incident". I was just basing that sentence off the fact that the cathedral is still standing fine and hadn't collapsed. I could just shift the ref to the end of the sentence, or remove it altogether. What would be better? —
Bloom6132 (
talk)
10:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Lol. Good point! The thing is, though, the article doesn't say that there weren't major repercussions. How about rewording the sentence to something like:
In April 1959, drilling and blasting commenced in a nearby tunnel, which is believed to be the cause of a minor tilt in the bell tower of the cathedral.
And, then folks can infer that since the bell tower and cathedral are still standing that there wasn't likely further damage. Although, how would we know? There could have been damage to the foundation, etc. that required work that never made it into the paper. (And, in our world, if it didn't make it to print, we cannot write about it - thinking ahead that you might be a member of the church.)--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
11:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I just removed the sentence altogether without rewording, since the source didn't say when the drilling and blasting started (only reports on when the tilting began). —
Bloom6132 (
talk)
17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Aw, thanks for kind words! I've been slowly developing this article for the past two years now. This Wednesday (October 8th) is the 2nd anniversary of this article's DYK (also coinciding with the feast day of the cathedral's namesake). —
Bloom6132 (
talk)
10:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
There were conversations more than a year old, so I took the liberty of creating an archive for you. Before I archived each item, though, I checked to see if there was an outstanding issue.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
03:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply