# Talk:Holy Rosary Cathedral (Vancouver)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Holy Rosary Cathedral (Vancouver)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 00:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I will complete the review today or tomorrow.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


### Overview
The article is very well-written and has a natural flow. It provides a good broad coverage of the subject, without going into unnecessary detail. There's great use of illustrative stories, images and quotes. It follows Manual of Style guidelines.  The article is well-sourced with inline citations, there's just one added citation needed tag. There's no evidence of original research. The article is neutral.
It is now stable, but there was some edit waring and talk-page dialogue in 2012-early 2013 regarding the "Modern day" section. I understand both sides and it seems to have settled into keeping that section, so I have no reason to question that.
There is good use of public domain images - all with proper licensing in commons. I'm not seeing copyright violations in the text, either.


### Edits
There were just a couple of minor copy edits and resolution of two cs1 date errors (you only see it if you've configured to see them). See this version comparison.
Since there were only two short citations for Thirkell - and several other books cited - I just changed Thirkell's short citations into long ones and removed the bibliography section for consistency. See this version comparison
Are you ok with the edits and changes to the Thirkell citations?--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I'm OK with them. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


### Comments
There's one citation needed tag that has been added.
I can't find any sources on "nothing serious [arising] from the incident".  I was just basing that sentence off the fact that the cathedral is still standing fine and hadn't collapsed.  I could just shift the ref to the end of the sentence, or remove it altogether.  What would be better? —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Lol. Good point! The thing is, though, the article doesn't say that there weren't major repercussions. How about rewording the sentence to something like:
In April 1959, drilling and blasting commenced in a nearby tunnel, which is believed to be the cause of a minor tilt in the bell tower of the cathedral.
And, then folks can infer that since the bell tower and cathedral are still standing that there wasn't likely further damage. Although, how would we know? There could have been damage to the foundation, etc. that required work that never made it into the paper. (And, in our world, if it didn't make it to print, we cannot write about it - thinking ahead that you might be a member of the church.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I just removed the sentence altogether without rewording, since the source didn't say when the drilling and blasting started (only reports on when the tilting began). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, sounds like the best option!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a further reading section if you know of any books that have the history or background information about the cathedral, like
Marianthi P. Constantinu (1968). Holy Rosary Cathedral: Vancouver, B.C.
Added that book, and one other book – it was the only other relevant book I could fine. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful! You don't need the access/retrieved dates, though, that's only required for citations with urls.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You've done a really great job on the article. This is all that I'm finding.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Aw, thanks for kind words!  I've been slowly developing this article for the past two years now.  This Wednesday (October 8th) is the 2nd anniversary of this article's DYK (also coinciding with the feast day of the cathedral's namesake). —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Isn't it nice how everything comes together?--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, looks great! I'll pass the article. Thanks.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There were conversations more than a year old, so I took the liberty of creating an archive for you. Before I archived each item, though, I checked to see if there was an outstanding issue.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)