Wikipedia:Peer review/Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral/archive1

Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I added a whole lot of information to it. However, I need someone with more architectural and/or religious knowledge (sorry, Im not Cathoic!) to look at the terminology. Most of my sources are in Spanish, which I speak, but my native language is English. Some of the saints' and virgins' names are not linked because I am not really sure who they really refer to.

Thanks, Thelmadatter (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I bring no special knowledge of church architecture to this review. Even so, I find the article interesting and the photos impressive. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

I'd recommend that you add an infobox. For an example of how this looks, please see St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery, a featured article about a religious building. If you haven't created an infobox before, an easy method is to copy and paste the template with all of its parameters into your article and then to fill in the relevant parameters. If this idea doesn't make sense, please let me know.

A longer and more complete lead would be good. It should be a summary or abstract of the whole article; ideally it would include at least a mention of the main ideas in each of the sections of the main text.

Galleries are generally frowned upon in Wikipedia articles. You might use some of the photos in the galleries by inserting some of their images into the main text. I would consider reducing the overall number of images, however. Use them to illustrate points in the text rather than as a separate photo display. In addition, the Manual of Style recommends avoiding layouts that sandwich a column of text between two or more photos. The existing article has a photo sandwich in the Sagrarium section. Please see MOS:IMAGES.

Quantities are generally expressed in Wikipedia articles in metric and imperial units. An easy way to get the conversion numbers and abbreviations right is to use the Template:Convert. I added one of these templates to the lead, and you can see by this example how it works. "Convert" will handle most units of length, area, volume, weight, and other kinds of measurement.

I see many small errors that a copyeditor would probably catch and fix. For example, the main text is not usually in boldface except for the introduction of the main subject in the first line of the lead. Thus, "Altar of Forgiveness" and other similar constructions would probably be better in plain type. Dates are not typically wikilinked, but "East side chapels" has several linked dates. Several paragraphs have double spaces between them for no apparent reason; others have "br" codes for no apparent reason. Date ranges and page ranges get an en dash rather than a hyphen. Copyediting would repair this sort of thing.

You might look at other featured articles about architecture and religious buildings to see what other authors and editors have done with similar subjects. You can find the complete list at WP:FA.

The two external links in the first "External links" section don't work. One is dead, and the other links to what seems to be irrelevant information. In addition, you should have only one "External links" section.

This is not a complete review, but I hope this short list of suggestions proves useful. If you have questions or comments, please post them here. I'll put a watch on this page. If you find this review process helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially from the backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]