Jump to content

Talk:Basilica of St. Mary of the Assumption (Lancaster, Ohio)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Basilica of St. Mary of the Assumption
Basilica of St. Mary of the Assumption

Created by Nheyob (talk) and Maximilian775 (talk). Nominated by Maximilian775 (talk) at 02:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]


  • The article is new, having been submitted to Wikipedia:Articles for creation on 16th August, accepted on 17th and subsequently expanded further.
  • Not a stub (I changed a stray Stub flagging on one of the WikiProjects), and long enough.
  • Well written in a neutral style, citing good sources: major local newspaper, the diocesan newspaper and a book. The parish's own website, although strictly speaking a primary source, is used appropriately to provide additional information.
    • Additional note: I am very familiar with Catholic diocesan newspapers, and I have no hesitation in accepting them (and using them) as a high-quality source, as in my experience they always have good editoral control and research standards.
  • No close paraphrasing or copyvio found. A note on the long blockquote in the final paragraph: I believe this to be acceptable because it is clearly presented as a quotation and it is a description of the heraldic achievement, and such descriptions typically use specific wording which needs to be quoted directly.
  • Neither contributor has 5 DYKs yet, making them exempt from QPQ requirements.
  • My query here is with the hook, because I know the statement will be challenged. Although it is self-evident that it is the most recent minor basilica to be named – this having happened only 5 days ago, and it being a relatively rare honour – unfortunately none of the sources cited, nor any other places I checked, actually state this explicitly. Could we come up with an alternative hook – perhaps something to do with the honour being granted on the Vigil of the Assumption?
  • There's just one other issue: the description of the heraldic achievement should be cited to this page on the parish website, not to the parish history website.


@Maximilian775: Would you be able to provide an update on this nomination please? Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maximilian775: Are you interested in keeping this nomination? –LordPeterII (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LordPeterII: yes, sorry, I am! I'm a newer editor and don't know how properly to edit a DYK once it's been submitted -- hassocks5489 alerted me to a better way to phrase this but I'm not sure how best to implement his recommendations. am open to learning + am sorry for my delay and ignorance. cf: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Maximilian775#Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Basilica_of_Saint_Mary_of_the_Assumption_(Lancaster,_Ohio) .Maximilian775 (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maximilian775: Ah, sorry as well, I didn't know you were already contacted on your talk page (I thought you had forgotten about this). And don't have to apologize, this was only meant as a friendly ping ^^ As for editing the DYK nom, you only have to make sure you edit the template, not the article talk page in which it is embedded (I made that mistake a lot when I started). But since this edit here is in the right place, I think you already figured that out. As for adding another hook, you just include it as part of a reply (ideally also neatly formatted like the following, but that is only for visual clarity):
That's what you had written on your talk page, I've just copied it here. As I am not the reviewer, I'll leave it to hassocks5489 to evaluta once they find time.
btw, completely unrelated comment meant for @hassocks5489: The QPQ requirement is no longer checked against article authors, but only against nominators. So only Maximilian775's DYK nominations (not credits) are of relevance here (which ofc makes no difference here, but just fyi on future reviews). –LordPeterII (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LordPeterII: just tried it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximilian775 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maximilian775: Ah, no, sorry, you misunderstood me: We usually don't change the original hook, so it's easier for other editors to understand what was critcised and why. The discussion sort of happens from "top to bottom", and we add alternative hook suggestions below previous comments. I had already added such a new suggestion as part of my post, so you don't need to do anything else. If the reviewer hassocks5489 should not be happy with ALT1 either, then you could propose another hook named ALT2 in a new post below. Technically this is not required, so what you did was not exactly "forbidden". But it's considered good practice to leave previous "mistakes" on discussion pages. If they are discarded, they should rather be stricked struck (like just shown), by placing <s>discarded text</s> tags around any "discarded text", such as retracted statements or discarded hooks. This is ofc completely different from the article itself, where the goal is to not have any old and superseded text remain.
I guess this has evolved into a bit of tech talk... don't worry if you don't get it all at once – because I didn't, in the beginning. Just try things out, eventually you'll get the hang of it :) –LordPeterII (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, whups. Well, regardless, thank you for your assistance. Maximilian775 (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for your help here. I am happy to mark ALT1 as verified. Typing this on my phone, so apologies for any formatting issues. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)
Alright, I've struck ALT0 for clarity. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense is St. Mary the second oldest church in the diocese? Second oldest parish perhaps. But several church buildings in the diocese are older. Examples: Holy Cross Church (Columbus) - 1848, St. Patrick Church (Columbus) - 1853. --Nheyob (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm realizing I could have phrased it a little better, and I was a little trigger-happy on it, haha. Maximilian775 (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I've raised on WP:ERRORS, the status was not conferred on the vigil of the Assumption but earlier in the year, so this DYK fails verification on a very fundamental level. Elizium23 (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basilica_of_St._Mary_of_the_Assumption_(Lancaster,_Ohio)&oldid=1205303393"