Talk:Catedral de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   • Give an English translation of "Nuestra Señora de la Guadalupe Cathedral" (Cathedral of Our Lady of Guadalupe). >>>>>> DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
   • "the Ponce..." is used a couple of times when just "Ponce" without the definite article seems more natural. >>>>>> DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
   • A parish is an administrative area rather than a building, so to say the chapel was "...converted into a parish..." and "...the original parish, located at the site currently occupied by the cathedral, was demolished..." is incorrect. Better to say that the original chapel was re-designated as a parish church and, later, the parish church was demolished. >>>>> DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
   • "This cathedral has a small cemetery in its interior". Cemetery is not usually used with regards to burials inside a building, does this mean that there is a crypt or there are burial vaults or sepulchres inside? >>>>>> "cemetery" is what the cited source states. Also, I personally had a tour of this cathedral sometime ago and I remember the tour guide saying that people where buried underneath what is now the floor of the cathedral. I hear the same thing from another tour guide while touring Christ Church in Philadelphia last year. The wikipedia Christ Church article states "Several notable people are buried in the church and adjacent churchyard." I don't claim to be an expert in burial places, and I might not have used the correct term for this type of burial place. However, the practice of burying the dead inside a church seems to have been common practice around the 18th and 19th centuries. (Comment by Mercy11)
     • I have no doubt that people were buried within the church/cathedral, but the term "cemetery" relates to outdoor burials. I have edited this to reflect this context.--DavidCane (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
   • "Immediately behind the cathedral..." Behind depends on where you are standing. Suggest saying that it is immediately to the east of the cathedral. >>>> DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
   • link "barrio" >>>>>> DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
   • Significance section is repetitive and makes a case for importance without really substantiating it:
     • "one of only five cathedrals in Puerto Rico" do you mean Catholic cathedrals or cathedrals of all denominations? >>>>> Yes, I meant "Catholic cathedrals". I have now qualified that statement, and also linked the qualifier to leave no room for ambiguity. DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
     • "stands out among" should be "stands out from" or "stands apart from". DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
     • Does it really stand out from the other cathedrals due to its age? The Cathedral of San Juan Bautista was started in 1521 and the Cathedral Dulce Nombre de Jesus dates from 1645 - both older than this one. >>>>> Good observation. However, it does not stand out based, individually, on each the 2 separate characteristics listed, pretending that each of them would stand on their own right. No. But, rather, it stands out for the 1 single combination of the 2 traits, first the intricate design used and then also its longevity. That is, it contains intricate design that dates to over 150 years ago. That is, it is the oldest cathedral in Puerto Rico with such intricate details. Maybe there is a better way of stating that, but that is the intended meaning. (Comment by Mercy11. Updated on 12/13/10))
     • "it is historically important because the location is the same as the original 1670 location" - repeated use of location. >>>>>> DONE. Changed second instance to "site". (Comment by Mercy11)
     • "The original towers were destroyed by the 1918 Puerto Rico earthquake. The current towers were built between 1931 and 1937" repeats information already given in the history section >>>>>>> Entirely true. Corrected. DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
   • Surroundings
     • Why "Low yet graceful"? How would the height of a wall affect is gracefulness? >>>>> Essentially, it is not the height that makes them graceful, but their undulation. In any event, I can see how this could be considered POV, so I have reworded it. DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
     • "mundane" seems an odd term to use of the plazas - the images on the Plaza Las Delicias page look quite ornate and beautiful. >>>>> The point I was trying to make here was that the cathedral, being a fully operational church (an active place of regularly scheduled worship), is considered a place where a measure of respect is expected due to the religious nature of its activities. This is not the case with Plaza Las Delicias, where all sorts of activities can take place. In any event, I have toned down the differences between the two neighbors as they are not critical to understanding an article about the building. (Comment by Mercy11)
   • When was the main altar installed? >>>>> I don't know the answer to this question. All I could come up with ([1]) was that the new(er) main altar was donated by the prominent local Ferre family (Ferre was Governor or Puerto Rico and his brother was Mayor of Miami, Florida, USA). (Comment by Mercy11)
     • You should include this. --DavidCane (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
       • DONE. But the reference used is the Travel Ponce website which I am not sure would be considered RS by everyone. A reference at Encyclopedia Puerto Rico talks about the altars, but does not mention the donation by the Ferres. Mercy11 (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
         • Ok, found more citations that Ferre donated the main altar and added them. Mercy11 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
   • The locations of the windows in the towers could probably be more simply described as being on each elevation at each level. It should be reasonably obvious that a window wouldn't occur where the tower is attached to the rest of the building. >>>>>>> Entirely true. Corrected. DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
   • "oversized" suggests that they are excessively large. Suggest just "large" doors. >>>>>>>> DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
   • "Middle Age" should be "Middles Ages" >>>>>>> I think you meant to say "Middle Ages" (with no "S" in the word "Middle"). Corrected accordingly. DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
   • The see also section should be moved after the references section and retitled "further reading". See also sections are for links to relevant wikipedia pages not already linked in the text. >>>>>>>> DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
   • External links
     • These need to be properly formatted with page titles, website details, publishers, etc. >>>>>>>>> DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
     • The first link only provides me with an index of the business directory, so I'm guessing that it has US usage restrictions. This should be stated. >>>>>> I do not understand what is meant by "US usage restrictions". Do you mean copyright? If so, the image has not been copied to the Wikipedia site; we are only providing an Internet link to the site - a big difference, as it does not violate any US copyright laws. (Comment by Mercy11)
       • No, the problem is that I cannot see the picture. What Google books allows users to see differs depending on where they are in the world. Here in the UK, I just get a description of the book and some bibliographical information, nothing more.--DavidCane (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
         • The picture in the google books looks like (timeframe-wise) the picture of the cathedral that has now been added to the article, except it has people in front of the cathedral. Timeframe-wise both pics depict the church at around the same general timeframe +/- 10 years. Just a comment.Mercy11 (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   • Lead needs to be longer. >>>>>> DONE. Doubled its length. (Comment by Mercy11)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   • A lot of the text here seems to be copied directly or almost directly from www.catedralescatolicas.com, is this text public domain? >>>>>>>> I don't know if that site is PD; but it doesn't matter: What you are looking at is a wikipedia mirror site that has taken our Ponce Cathedral English article and translated into Spanish. I know this for a fact because I created the text in the article myself precisely as that site has it, but then, word-for-word, they have duplicated my work into their Spanish site. (Comment by Mercy 11)
   • No citations for first paragraph of significance section >>>>>>> DONE. Added the necessary citation. (Comment by Mercy11)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   • The link in ref 1 is not working at present. >>>>>>> DONE. Fixed; nps moved its database to a focus-based system. (Comment by Mercy11)
     • I still get a broken page. As the url includes "sessionid" the link may be going to a non-persistent search page. you could try linking to the pdf of the registery entry directly at http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/84000467.pdf. There is additional information here regarding the description of the side chapels, arcades and altar which should be added to the article.--DavidCane (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
       • I fixed the broken page/link problem using the pdf link suggested. As for the additional info, that is true and I will work on adding some more information from that source. Mercy11 (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
   • Refs 5 and 9 are the same, so should be consolidated. >>>>>> DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
   • Refs 4 and 13 and the same, so should be consolidated. Refs 10 and 14 are to the same source as 4 and 13 so this would be better put in a bibliography section with a short link from the refs section. >>>>>>>>> DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
   • Retrieval dates required for refs 1, 3, 5/9, 6 and 7 >>>>>> DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
   • Publisher required for refs 5/9, 11 and 12. >>>>>>>>> DONE (Comment by Mercy11.) What makes the sites quoted for refs 2, 3, 5/9, 6, 7, 11 and 12 reliable? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
     • (2) - Checking the references and bibliography of the Guide, they all are RSs.
     • (3) - 20 year old Puerto Rico history site. Not self-published, and the site has been quoated by several Island mainstream newspapers.
     • (5/9)- A travel Guide similar to Frommers or LonelyPlanet, but unlike Frommers or LonelyPlanet who also publish a hardcopy version, they have only an electronic version.
     • (6) - This site is a self-published site. I have replaced it by a reliable source. Puerto Rico Encyclopedia is a trusted online-only encyclopedia, partly funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities.
     • (7) - Also self-published. While the information is 100% accurate, I have removed the citation entirely since it is not needed as the citation #8 (Banco Credito y Ahorro Ponceño) contains the same information.
     • (11) - Like Westlaw, microjuris is a legal research tool, but for lawyers in Latin American countries and Spanish-speaking US.
     • (12) - Self-published. Again, while the info is correct, like #7 above, it's not needed since #11 (a reliable source) has the same information.
     • DONE. (Comment by Mercy11)
     • --DavidCane (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Format refs so that publisher is separate from the external link text with its own separate link if available - refs 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 >>>>>>>> This appears to be a matter of personal Best Practices. But, how is this a GA requirement?
       • Use of the various cite templates is not obligatory; the citations can be coded by hand, but they should follow the recognised format, and they help get everything in the right order.--DavidCane (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

   • Request for Clarification: I am not sure if there is anything to be done for this "OR" section. Thx Mercy11 (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
     • I will clear this one when I have finished looking at the refs. I've been marking exam papers for the last couple of days, which is why there's been no progress, but I am back now. --DavidCane (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   • Architecture
     • There is a very specific description of the front façade but no mention of the pedimented semi-circular niches, the types of columns (doric) or the urns, but next to nothing on the other elevations and only a little on the interior. Also consider unsighted users and mention that the cathedral is mostly finished in white or pale grey stucco. What is specifically French about the neoclassical style of the cathedral? >>>>>> As to the color, it is not finished in white, but in baby blue and pale gray. DONE. Request for Clarification: What do you mean by "Also consider unsighted users". (Edit and Request by Mercy11)
       • The description is still missing quite a lot of architectural information.
       • My reference to unsighted (blind) readers is that they won't get much information on the appearance of the cathedral from the text when they use a screen reader. --DavidCane (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
     • Which saints or apostles? >>>> Unfortunately, I have not seen this documented in writing anywhere throughout the years. Request for Concurrency: Maybe the statement should be taken out altogether???? After all, an encyclopedia WP:ISNOT expected to contain everything known to man, so one solution might be to remove the statement altogether as a solution (???). (by Mercy11 on 12/7/10)
       • Just say statues in that case.--DavidCane (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
         • DONE. Mercy11 (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
     • What about the stained glass windows? >>>>>> DONE. (by Mercy11 on 12/7/10)
     • What about interior monuments/memorials, stations of the cross, pulpit, pews, etc? >>>> Request for Clarification: Maybe I am not religious enough, but what do you mean by "stations of the cross"? (by Mercy11 on 12/7/10 and 12/12/10)
       • Stations of the Cross.--DavidCane (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
         • Oh Lord! I don't think this sort of thing is documented anywhere. I will look around and otherwise keep my eyes open for any such information. Mercy11 (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
     • Does it have any bells? >>>>>> Hummm, I'd love to know the answer to this question: Never heard it did; never heard it didn't.(crossed out by Mercy11,,,see bell "UPDATE" below) Request for Clarification: Is this a show stopper if no documentation can be found? I could do my own research and find out, but then that would be WP:OR and a violation of policy. (by Mercy11 on 12/7/10)
       • I asked about bells as the church has two towers and churches and cathedrals usually have some way to announce services and celebrate wedding ceremonies.
       • It's not a show stopper, its just that for an article on a church there wasn't/isn't much information on the ecclesiastical features of the building --DavidCane (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
         • UPDATE: It does have bells, and I have added a citation to that effect. I also verified with someone who lives in that town, to make sure teh cathedral doesn't just have bell towers but without bells: No, it does have bells towers and it does also have fully functioning bells that ring anytime the mass is going to start (unlike those church bells elsewhere that ring every hour of the day). Mercy11 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
         • UPDATE2: OK! found another citation that church does have bells, and added it. Mercy11 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
           • OK. "campanarios" = "bell towers". Although Google's translator renders this just as "tower".--DavidCane (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
     • Anyone significant buried here? >>>>> Have not seen this documented anywhere. It is known, though, that many old church records were lost as a result of fires and earthquakes some 100 years ago and longer. It would be speculation (WP:OR???), however, as to whether that information was lost in the fires. (by Mercy11 on 12/7/10)
       • Usually people buried in a church will have a memorial over their burial place or on the wall nearby.--DavidCane (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
     • What did the earlier towers look like? >>>> This is depicted in the "External links", in "Photos of the Cathedral" provided in the article. Request for Clarification: It is necessary to also describe them within the text if they no longer exist? (by Mercy11 on 12/7/10)
       • I think it is necessary, because it is part of the history. I have added a picture from the linked archive which will be public domain due to age, but a description is relevant. --DavidCane (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
         • I did my best. I am not an architect and would not know how to describe them in all other sorts of details. Mercy11 (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
     • You say how large in area it is, but what about:
       • length and width of the building and height of the towers? >>>>>> Not documented in any third party sources that I am aware of. (by Mercy11 on 12/7/10)
       • length and width of the nave? >>>>>> Not documented either that I am aware of. (by Mercy11 on 12/7/10)
   • Usage
     • Size of congregation? >>>>>> Again, not documented that I am aware of. It is documented that the Mañanitas Event attracts thousands to the Cathedral every year, but I am afraid the source (YouTube) might not be considered a Reliable Source. (by Mercy11 on 12/7/10).
       • Found a credible (RS) newspaper source today, since it just so happens that yesterday was the Celebration of Las Mañanitas in Ponce. It states the event attracted a record-breaking 10,000 people. I will add it shortly. Also, this source HERE states the cathedral holds a congregation of 500. I have been inside this cathedral and I can say 500 sounds about right. Can this source be used? I am concerned it might be considered not Reliable. Mercy11 (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
         • I don't think ship of fools.com could be considered reliable. It is essentially a church fanzine. --DavidCane (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
           • Right. Added only Mañanitas 10,000 crowd info from Reliable Source: El Nuevo Dia newspaper was founded in the 1950s by ex-governor Luis A. Ferre. Thus YouTube 1,000s Mañanitas crowd info is not necessary. Also, I am NOT adding the Ship of Fools info about the 500 congregation size. Mercy11 (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
     • Any special local celebrations held here during the year? clue: 12 December >>>>> DONE. (by Mercy11 on 12/9/10)
     • Weddings? >>>>>>>>DONE. (by Mercy11 on 12/9/2010)
     • It is always open for visitors? Tours?>>>>>>>>> DONE. Added hours open. (by Mercy11 on 12/9/10)

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   File:Plan of Plaza Las Delicias in Ponce, Puerto Rico.jpg appears to be taken from www.catedralescatolicas.com. Is this public domain? >>>>>>>> I created the Plan myself and released it under a CCA-SA3 license. See comment to 2-A-1 above.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   • Other images appear OK
   • You could "borrow" the pre-earthquake images on pages 5 and 7 of the PDF collection in the second external link - these are likely to be public domain in the US due to age (demonstrably before 1923 and a US public archive).

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass