# Talk:Pohick Church

Didn't this article used to be much larger? I recall seeing a vastly-expanded article some time ago; what happened? Zaldax (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This article was mentioned in an article in the Washington Post on October 2, 2018. Tom Gally (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this correct?  
"The water table is considered to be of note, as it combines concave and convex styles." ovA_165443 21:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
also...
"..topped with a pedimented frieze."
you probably just mean 'topped by a pediment.' ovA_165443 21:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
and...
The altarpiece, twenty feet high and fifteen wide, is in wainscot,
what do you mean 'in wainscot'?
at any rate, some questions I had...nice article!

I'm not sure why the Canadian contract editor Nikkimaria, with whose edits I've encountered recently, but tried to correct, put an unreliable sources tag on this article. Clearly, the article uses the passive voice, which isn't the purpose of the tag. It doesn't identify the sources that she disagrees with (which probably are those about 100 years old, but not necessarily unreliable IMHO).Jweaver28 (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one would arrive at the conclusion that an unreliable sources tag was added because the article uses passive voice; as noted, there are other tags more appropriate to that situation. Rather, the tag was added because the sourcing of the article needs improvement - there is extensive use of primary sources, self-published sources, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, after glancing at the 120 footnotes and having visited both the church years ago, and much more often the Fairfax library's local history section. Frankly, it seems you're penalizing the article for over-citation, if not for a political disagreement with the church's founders and members, neither of which isn't what this tag's about. IMHO the historic plaques are not primary sources, nor are published genealogical society annals. That pamphlets are available in the local library's local history room does not make them unreliable.Jweaver28 (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I have no political interests involved; as mentioned, the issue is with the sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
While you might not have a political interest as one of my cyberstalkers, clearly the issue is not with sourcing, since this and other of your paid edits I've encountered indicate your unfamiliarity with Virginia history. The article already has a relevant tag concerning the lede, and you're tag seems cyberbullying, rather than to improve the article.Jweaver28 (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


### Raising this matter again
If someone wouldn't mind identifying specifically which sources look unreliable, I'd appreciate it. The tag has sat on this GA for almost three years now and I would like to remedy it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The article continues to make extensive use of primary and self-published sources - unfortunately this isn't limited to one or two references. It will take significant work to remedy. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)