Talk:Pohick Church
 | Pohick Church has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 7, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Article size? edit
Didn't this article used to be much larger? I recall seeing a vastly-expanded article some time ago; what happened? Zaldax (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Mention in Washington Post edit
This article was mentioned in an article in the Washington Post on October 2, 2018. Tom Gally (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Architecture, water table edit
Is this correct?
"The water table is considered to be of note, as it combines concave and convex styles." ovA_165443 21:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
also... "..topped with a pedimented frieze."
you probably just mean 'topped by a pediment.' ovA_165443 21:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
and... The altarpiece, twenty feet high and fifteen wide, is in wainscot,
what do you mean 'in wainscot'?
at any rate, some questions I had...nice article!
odd unreliable sources tag edit
I'm not sure why the Canadian contract editor Nikkimaria, with whose edits I've encountered recently, but tried to correct, put an unreliable sources tag on this article. Clearly, the article uses the passive voice, which isn't the purpose of the tag. It doesn't identify the sources that she disagrees with (which probably are those about 100 years old, but not necessarily unreliable IMHO).Jweaver28 (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how one would arrive at the conclusion that an unreliable sources tag was added because the article uses passive voice; as noted, there are other tags more appropriate to that situation. Rather, the tag was added because the sourcing of the article needs improvement - there is extensive use of primary sources, self-published sources, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree, after glancing at the 120 footnotes and having visited both the church years ago, and much more often the Fairfax library's local history section. Frankly, it seems you're penalizing the article for over-citation, if not for a political disagreement with the church's founders and members, neither of which isn't what this tag's about. IMHO the historic plaques are not primary sources, nor are published genealogical society annals. That pamphlets are available in the local library's local history room does not make them unreliable.Jweaver28 (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have no political interests involved; as mentioned, the issue is with the sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- While you might not have a political interest as one of my cyberstalkers, clearly the issue is not with sourcing, since this and other of your paid edits I've encountered indicate your unfamiliarity with Virginia history. The article already has a relevant tag concerning the lede, and you're tag seems cyberbullying, rather than to improve the article.Jweaver28 (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have no political interests involved; as mentioned, the issue is with the sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree, after glancing at the 120 footnotes and having visited both the church years ago, and much more often the Fairfax library's local history section. Frankly, it seems you're penalizing the article for over-citation, if not for a political disagreement with the church's founders and members, neither of which isn't what this tag's about. IMHO the historic plaques are not primary sources, nor are published genealogical society annals. That pamphlets are available in the local library's local history room does not make them unreliable.Jweaver28 (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)