- 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 97198 (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tabaco Church
edit
... that the stones used in the construction of San Juan Bautista Parish Church (pictured) in the Philippines contain masonic imprints?
- ALT1:... that the unusual floor plan of San Juan Bautista Parish Church (pictured) in the Philippines is still unexplainable?
- Reviewed: Sophie (musician)
Created by Carlojoseph14 (talk). Self nominated at 16:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC).
Reopened, hook incorrect (or at least seriously misleading), as discussed at WT:DYK#Masonic stonemasons. Fram (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- So, how should we rephrase it? --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Hinnk and Fram:
ALT2 ... that the purpose of compartments in the floor plan of San Juan Bautista Parish Church (pictured), built in 1587, are a mystery?~ R.T.G 22:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Your ping didn't work (perhaps the lack of space between the template and the ALT), but I have this on my watchlist anyway. Your hook is incorrect, the church wasn't built in 1587 but in 1864-1879. As for the floor plan, it is sourced, but without any image or more detailed description whatsoever, I don't think it is a service to the reader. People like to judge such things for themselves, but here they get a teaser but no chance of seeing it for themselves. What is unusual about it? What "compartments"? Are they just markings on the floor, or real separations, walls, stairs, ... The image of the interior here doesn't show anything unusual. Fram (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Hinnk and Fram:
- Proposing a new hook:
- ALT3 ... that the stones used in the construction of San Juan Bautista Parish Church (pictured) in the Philippines contain mason's marks? --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Couldn't you have just changed the year instead of striking it? Only for my edit I just made to the article, the masonry marks were not even stated as unusual, and among Europeans, they had been standardised for 3 centuries before the church was built, so that is hardly more of a mystery than the mystery bit, but whatever you think, most people will not be familiar with "mason's marks" and will be interested if that kind of thing interests them, whereas they might not be about so sort of pit in the floor, ~ R.T.G 09:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't catch that in the review; I know little about mason's marks. I agree with RTG the corrected hook isn't as catching, but there are other facts that could probably work as a hook:
- ALT4 ... that the National Museum of the Philippines declared San Juan Bautista Parish Church (pictured) one of two National Cultural Treasures in the Bicol region?
- ALT5 ... that San Juan Bautista Parish Church was constructed using volcanic soil? hinnk (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- FYI @Fram:. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't catch that in the review; I know little about mason's marks. I agree with RTG the corrected hook isn't as catching, but there are other facts that could probably work as a hook: