Talk:Holy Name of Jesus Cathedral (Raleigh, North Carolina)

Excessive detail

Recent edits, first by Obrienandkeane (diff) and later by Depalmalaura (first diff and second diff), have added excessive amounts of detail about the architecture of this church. If this church were an architectural landmark, this level of detail might be appropriate, but as it is not such a landmark, this amount of detail is excessive and serves little purpose other than to promote the work of the architects. It should be noted that the architects for this project are the firm of O'Brien and Keane, making the first user an obvious case of WP:COI. Based on the similarity of the restored content, I can only assume that the second user is an employee of O&K. It should be noted that the vast majority of the detail is either completely unsourced, or is sourced to the websites of either the architectural firm or the cathedral itself.

I am opening this discussion to get the consensus of the community regarding this level of detail. I will ping the WP:WikiProject Architecture to seek some input from those users. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the current level of detail is excessive, seems to promote the architectural firm, and needs citation. That said, depending on how we define the term "architectural landmark," I'm not sure that I'd agree that Holy Name is not one. It's an enormous, imposing, and distinctive building that is not only visible from much of central Raleigh, but is architecturally significant in style and materials. Some level of detail on its architecture is entirely appropriate, and at this stage in the cathedral's life—prior to its dedication—should, perhaps, even comprise a large proportion of the article. As far as paring back what is here, for now, I would suggest sticking to what can be cited, and maybe adding more pictures once it opens. Using as a template, the Washington National Cathedral, which is undoubtedly an architectural landmark, note that while there is some discussion of materials and some of the particularly noteworthy architectural features, it's not exhaustive. There are books written on its myriad other qualities. Radiotradition (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for the feedback. I will seek to reduce the detail in the article, making sure it is written as objectively as possible, and provide further citations.Depalmalaura (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

One would have thought with all the details about the building, one would have taken the time to acquire photographs of the building to illustrate what is being discussed. Just a thought. Farragutful (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)