# Talk:San Sebastian Church (Manila)

GA review (see here for criteria)
Just a few spots of prose awkwardness, and one question about a website used as a source
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Comments

Generally, galleries are discouraged. It won't fail the article at GA, but if you plan on going on to FAC, it might cause concerns there.
Ok, I'll keep that in mind. Anyo Niminus (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The lead section, the statement that it is "internationally famous" needs a citation, as its opinion.
The sentence containing the statement was intended as an introductory lead for the rest of the paragraph, with the succeeding sentences (with their respective references) specifically designed to support the assertion that the church was "internationally famous for its architectural features". That statement was meant as a precis of the succeeding factual statements in the paragraph, and not as a stand-alone assertion. I'm open to revising the sentence, but I'm interested in hearing reactions to my justification of that statement. Anyo Niminus (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Generally, such a statement needs some sort of direct citation. A couple of tourism sites or a travel review from a book would help satisfy that. The statement "internationally famous" is very definitely opinion, and needs something to back it up, even with the supporting statements later. I won't fail the article for GA on this, but it would not pass muster at FAC as it stands. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind. In any case, pending a direct citation, I substituted "internationally famous" with the less contentious "noted". --Anyo Niminus (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Lead "A distinct example.." why is it distinct? "An example of ..." would be better
Changed as suggested. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Lead, consider changing "It had been designated..." to "It was designated..."
Changed as suggested. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
History section, first paragraph, first sentence, consider changing "martyr of Rome and patron of Archers" to "a martyr and patron saint of archers" Either way, Archers shouldn't be capitalized.
How about "...Don Bernardino Castillo, a generous patron and a devotee of the Christian martyr Saint Sebastian, donated..." I don't think the saint's patronage of archers is relevant to the article. And I suspect the editor who wrote that passage might have been referring to a college sports team. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Changed as agreed. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Same section and paragraph, first sentence consider rewording "donated land comprising..." as it's very wordy. Perhaps "donated the land which is the current site of ..."
Changed as suggested. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Same section and paragraph, second sentence, consider dropping the "was"'s from "The original church, which was made of wood, was burned in 1651 during a Chinese uprising." which gives "The original church, made of wood, burned in ..."
Changed as suggested. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably need a citation on the second paragraph of Construction.
I've got a citation, will be adding it once I've found the book.Added a citation. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Features section, you say there were "six holy water fonts in the church..." were? Are they no longer there? If so, what happened to them? If not, it should say "There are..."
Based on the reference, the fonts were there as of 1919, which is the date of the source material. The only way I could think of to confirm that fact is to actually make a visual check of the church itself, which is not implausible for me or other Manila residents. But maybe this might be satisfactory, "Six holy water fonts were constructed for the church, each crafted from marble obtained from Romblon". --Anyo Niminus (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Changed as agreed. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Same section, third paragraph, the first sentence is awkward, consider rewording to "Above the main altar of the chuch is an image of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, given to the church by Carmelite sisters from Mexico City in 1617."
Changed as suggested. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Consider changing the next sentence to "The image withstood ..."
Changed as suggested. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Preservation section, first paragraph, second sentence is awkward. Perhaps "Among the significant problems facing the church are rust and corrosion, which the sea breezes from nearby Manila Bay contribute to."
Agree about the awkwardness, but I think it is worth alluding that the steel structure of the church is relevant to the particular problems facing the church. How about "The steel church has been beset by rust and corrosion, which the sea breezes from nearby Manila Bay contribute to." Anyo Niminus (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That works. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Changed as agreed. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
What makes http://www.artesdelasfilipinas.com/main/archives.php?pid=24 a reliable source?
The only quantitative proof I can offer is that the Artes de la Filipinas website has been linked to by a website maintained by the De La Salle University, which is among the top three or four universities in the Philippines. That the site has been deemed credible by one of the leading academic institutions of the Philippines should be a positive. I'll admit though that it would be better to bolster the statements relying on that reference with other sources. There are local encyclopedias or books that I'll try to check out, though I don't know if the seven days will be enough as I'll be on vacation for the next few days and will be able to attend to this around five days into the holding period. If other editors want to look into this, that would be great. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
How about this, it's marginally reliable, and certainly good enough for GA status. Just try to get it changed out before FAC, and that'll be good. No need to rush yourself to death over it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, will keep that in mind. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of FAC, if you're intending to take it there, I strongly suggest digging up some more information, if possible. A bit more on the history, etc. wouldn't go amiss. I'm not an architectural historian by any means, so take this with a grain of salt, but the article felt skimpy in some places, at least in terms of a FA article. It's certainly well within GA parameters, and I have no qualms about passing it, with the citations on the construction section, but for FAC, I'd suggest looking at a few of the architecture FAs out there, and seeing what more might be added to this article to flesh it out. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments, and for the smooth handling of this evaluation. When I expanded the article, having it elevated to GA was far from my mind, and I nominated it only after another editor suggested that I do so. I agree it will take much more work before the article can even receive consideration for FAC, but its a goal worth aspiring for. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we're all done here. Promoting now. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

New Coat of Arms of the Archdiocese of Manila.png
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

DEL CARMEN DE SAN SEBASTIAN.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The article repeatedly refers to the church as having been built of steel, but according to this expert on prefabricated architecture (Prof Miles Lewis of the Portable Buildings World Heritage Nomination Task Force) this building is made of iron, not steel - see pp93-95 of this ref:

Portable Buildings News No. 7, July 2024.
Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I've been looking at the other refs that state that the building is made of steel - the one by Findelle De Jesus is just a blog written by a graphic designer with a degree in Fine Arts; and despite his claim to being an architect, Benjie Layug's superficial comment on his blog B.L.A.S.T Benjie Layug's: Adventures of a Savvy Traveller that "The earthquake-proof Minor Basilica of San Sebastian (better known as San Sebastian Church), an example of the Gothic Revival architecture in the Philippines, is the first and only steel building in the Philippines and in Asia, the second in the world after the Eiffel Tower of Paris and probably the first prefabricated building in the world." is demonstrably false - e.g. see Cast-iron architecture#Prefabricated and transportable buildings. As the Portable Buildings News ref I've provided is much more comprehensive, I'll use this to c/e the article and and replace the less reliable sources. Bahudhara (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The current reference from UNESCO seems definitive. AntientNestor (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The UNESCO ref is very basic, has scant detail and no refs, and is poorly written - e.g. "The steel parts were manufactured in the Societe Anonyme 's foundry in Binche."
Societe Anonyme is generic, it just means "limited company" in French, and is not specific to the actual company name, which is not otherwise mentioned in the UNESCO ref.
The Portable Buildings News ref is more detailed, and provides its own sources; the author (Miles Lewis) is a world expert on 19th century prefabricated buildings. He states (page 94) "In February 1881 Don Genaro Palacios, Phillipines Director of Public Works, recommended a new church of iron (this has been incorrectly reported as steel, but references in Spanish are to hierro) to withstand future tremors."  As hierro in Spanish means iron, I consider his opinion to be more reliable. Bahudhara (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)