# Talk:Maribojoc Church

This review is transcluded from Talk:Santa Cruz Parish Church (Maribojoc)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 23:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I will start the review today and finish it within the next couple of days.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


### Overview
The article is well-written and paraphrased, with use of good-reliable sources. There are a few cases where there are citations missing and one source to improve, but the rest of the sources are great! It follows Manual of Style guidelines for sections, layout, etc. The article is stable. It covers the subject well, without going into unnecessary detail. It's told from a neutral point of view. The images are helpful to better know the now destroyed building. The images have suitable captions and have the appropriate licensing tags in commons.


### Sources
There are a couple of citation needed tags in a few areas. That helps us to know that there's no original research and that reliable, secondary sources were used.
* Done. Citation needed tags are replaced. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
There's also a tag on the "Rapper" article. It's a blog / op-ed kind of site that has editorial control over grammatical issues, but not content. It would be good to find a reliable, secondary source, such as a newspaper, book, journal, etc.
Rappler (not Rapper) is a online news portal in the Philippines. Reliable? I think, yes. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


### Content
I have made some minor edits, added wikilinks, and changed the image layout so it didn't crowd the short sections here. See if you think they're helpful.
Thanks. I find it helpful! --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You may want to add something to the introduction about its history - how old it is, who built it.
Done. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "Missions were built in the settlement along the Abatan River at Viga" - Were there multiple missions built in a single settlement?
Corrected the line. There was only one mission station and a single settlement along the river. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Overall there's good paraphrasing, but this bit is a direct quote and would be good to be reworded because its wording is somewhat unique, easy to spot: "an early church in a swampy area of the town proper"
Reparaphrased the line. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "The church, made of coral stones under the Recollects, was built in 1852"... what happened to the church that was completed in 1816?
There was no information on what happened to the church of 1816. It might be destroyed by natural calamities. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
"The image of Santa Cruz (or Holy Cross), the town's patron" - is a cross really a town's patron?
Yes. The Holy Cross is the patron of the town. There are a lot of towns in the Philippines where the patron saint is the Holy Cross like in Alitagtag, Batangas and Bocaue, Bulacan. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This seems a little awkward - "The image of Santa Cruz (or Holy Cross), the town's patron, was located in a small shrine on top of another containing the wooden statue of San Vicente Ferrer, the town's secondary patron, on the central niche of the retablo-mayor." I don't know if it would help if the central niche part was said earlier. See what you think.
I think its OK since the retablo mayor has three niches and the central one is reserved for the patrons of a town. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


### General comments
Great article! I've really enjoyed reading it. I'll put the article on hold for seven days to allow you time to respond to the comments and make any necessary edits.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Hoping for the approval of the GA status! --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Great work - the edits look good!
My only outstanding question now is the Rappler source... but I think that there's an easy solution. The fourth reference - the GMA New source with a full editorial staff - is a news article. And, it looks like that article covers the bit from Rappler. What do you think about replacing Rappler with the GMA citation, if that works?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I also added a gallery on the present church situation (after the earthquake).
Done! Replaced the Rappler citation to GMA News. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, cool!
The pictures really bring home the devastation of the earthquake and the lone survivor (the statue). Wow! I've not seen a gallery as the first thing in a section, but it seems to work. The article looks good and "passes"!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Article contains attributions to Murillo Velarde.  However his work was written in 1749, and attribution is for a building complated a century and a half later.  Needs thinking about. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 11:33, wikitime=  03:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The citation was added by another editor. Reviewed the source. It does not say that the church and retablo attibuted to Fr. Jose Sanchez was the ruined one, maybe one of the churches before the ruined one. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There were a number of recent changes - some of which were unnecessary and some of which were not the right approach:

Unnecessary: citation formation style, facade-->façade, coordinate number format, retablo did not need to be italicized - per article, and more.
A link to a wikipedia article should not be the only entry in a note
Erroneous clarification tags
Addition of uncited content
Etc.
Rather than redo the Good article review, it was better to revert to the earlier version that used capitalization / italics, etc. based upon related Wikipedia article content (e.g. Neo-gothic, Catholic Church, etc.)edit, and will look for helpful copy edits to return.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

STRONG SUPPORT. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maribojoc Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140908181133/http://www.maribojoc.gov.ph/about/history to http://www.maribojoc.gov.ph/about/history
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can update this article. The church has been restored. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)