Wikipedia:Peer review/St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao/archive1

St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for Featured Article status, once it is of sufficient quality to be pass. I'm willing to do all the legwork and make whatever improvements are necessary.

Thanks for the feedback, ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Noraft, I welcome your ambitious goal and appreciate your willingness to improve this article. I had a quick look to it and can suggest several areas of possible improvement to start with:
  • Clarification: does "largest piece of neo-Romanesque architecture" refer to the length of the nave, height of the towers or internal area of the church?
  • I think the reader would like to know more about the size of the Catholic community at the time the church was built.
  • A bit more background information about the Divine Word Missionaries (and their linkage to Germany) would be useful.
  • Imagery:
    • The lead image is very low resolution and has a strong perspective distortion - a better lead image should be possible.
    • The historic image is tilted, and needs to be rotated CCW.
    • An image of the church in its urban context like this or this would be very useful for the article.
  • Is the building currently heritage listed?

Hope these comments will be useful. Elekhh (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are both helpful and appreciated. I'll get to work on improving the images. I'm not sure which dimension makes it the largest piece of neo-Romanesque architecture, but I think that was taken from a literary source, so I'll verify that. The building is listed as a Provincial Historic Building by the government of Shandong province (which is why I gave it High importance under the architecture wikiproject). I got this piece of information from a sign on the church grounds, of which I have a photograph. I think I can cite a sign, right? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 13:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have altered the historic image, but am unsure of whether to upload it to Wikimedia Commons as a replacement of the current (cocked) image, or if I should upload it as a separate image. If I replace the old one, the cropping removes the Bundesarchiv registration number, which materially alters the image, I think. How should I proceed? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Answered my own question. A retouched version of the image is now in the article. Thanks. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Baidu Baike is not a reliable source. Citing it is akin to citing Wikipedia. You really need to find a new source to replace it. Nothing else jumps out at me in the sourcing. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the facts mentioned in that translation (that the crosses were removed by the Red Guard, etc) are sourced from other (more reliable) sources, so the factual accuracy is not in much dispute. The Baidu Baike translation gives an interesting first-person account of what happened, which is why I had it translated into English. If the facts in the translation are verifiable, do you really think it needs to be removed? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why not use Baike as a bibliography- track down, read, and cite the sources they're using? You will not get this through FAC citing a website that can be changed by anyone. (In other words, citing it is as much a problem as citing the Chinese Wikipedia. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it doesn't list any references. That's a shame that it won't go through FAC, because everything it mentions is verified elsewhere, in other (better) sources. I really think it adds depth and color to the article. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

But "colourful" cannot replace verifiabile, at least not on Wikipedia. This should have been picked up at the GA assessment already. Elekhh (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that all the facts in that account have been verified. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 09:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How? If they've all been verified in reliable secondary-sources, then why is the citation to a user-generated tertiary source still necessary? (I'm also mildly concerned the GA reviewer didn't catch this) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The other references in the article verify the facts of the account (church defaced, crosses cut off, etc). The user-generated tertiary source provides a first-hand account, which I think adds depth and color. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tasks

I've organized this section into tasks, so I can easily track what has been done and what is yet to do.

• Clarification: does "largest piece of neo-Romanesque architecture" refer to the length of the nave, height of the towers or internal area of the church? All of the above, from what I've been able to tell.
• I think the reader would like to know more about the size of the Catholic community at the time the church was built.  Done
• A bit more background information about the Divine Word Missionaries (and their linkage to Germany) would be useful.  Done
• The lead image is very low resolution and has a strong perspective distortion - a better lead image should be possible.  Not done Having trouble finding another good lead image.
• The historic image is tilted, and needs to be rotated CCW.  Fixed
• An image of the church in its urban context like this or this would be very useful for the article.  Done
• Is the building currently heritage listed? Yes and now stated in the article.

• If you happen to find information about the year of listing, it would be valuable. Elekhh (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Will see what I can do. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 09:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Baidu Baike is not a reliable source. In Discussion

Nefirious's thoughts on the article

• I think enough has been done in order to improve the article, the article has all the requirments for GA status. Hence it should be given what it deserves. If the editors promise to improve the article further and take it to FA status. Protect the wonderful article from vandalism. It is neither too small nor too big, it is just the size it is required to be. Nefirious (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. To clarify, the article was given GA status before this peer review was opened, in order to prepare it for FA candidacy. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)