# Talk:St. Mary's Church (Albany, New York)

This review is transcluded from Talk:St. Mary's Church (Albany, New York)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 16:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I can take a look at this! — GhostRiver 16:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


### Infobox and lede
"but in all of upstate New York"
"The congregation of St. Mary's was established in the late 18th century."
"supposedly where St. Isaac Jogues" → "supposedly on the property"
"visited or were associated" → "have visited or been associated"
"made it his procathedral" → "made St. Mary's his procathedral"
"and was responsible for much of the look"
All  Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Per MOS:LEADCITE, information found in the body of an article does not usually have to be cited in the lede, which means that the part about lighting can have the citation removed, as it's referenced later
 Done That was for the sake of its DYK appearance, when reviewers insist that if you state the hook fact in the intro, it needs to be cited there. But that's long in the past now. Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


### Building
I worry about the use of "accompanying photos" for most of this section, which might well border on OR
See WP:OI: " Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy." Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


#### Exterior
See above


#### Interior
Good


### History
#### 1643-1797
"helped Jogues to escape" → "helped the priest to escape"
"as some of the North American Martyrs" – the group involves eight priests, and only three are mentioned here
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Who is "they" in "they asked the Vatican" and "they formally incorporated"? Was it just the priests, or were laymen involved as well?
"at the homes of one of their few prosperous members." Some confusing phrasing - was it multiple homes belonging to one person, or various homes each owned by separate wealthy members?
 Fixed these last two. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


#### 1798-1828
"from Poughkeepsie in the south" → "south towards Poughkeepsie" for parallelism
Catholic priests don't give sermons, they give homilies (I hear the voice of my great-grandmother on this one)
"that the Protestant leaders of the city and state went to hear because of their quality." → "of such quality that they attracted Protestant leaders from Albany and greater New York."
"help in getting some nuns" → "assistance in recruiting nuns"
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


#### 1829-1866
Either italicize all or none of "patroons"
 Done Although, interestingly, MOS:FOREIGNITALIC is silent on this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


#### 1867-1900
"to reincorporate the church in a way more amenable to Catholicism." I'm not entirely sure what this means
 Fixed I found the church's current website has a page that says "Incorporation was granted according to a new law of 1863, far more favorable to Catholic usage than the old trustee law had been." I'd love more details but that's all there is. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
"the architect, from the firm of Nichols & Brown"
Generally when writing about architecture IME, "architect" can mean the firm commissioned as much as an individual—designing a building can often be a collaborative endeavor (note, for instance, that Grand Central Station's architecture is credited to two firms, and more recently the CNOOC Building in Beijing is credited to an American firm) and the people involved want to recognize that. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The part about mayor Maher seems trivial unless Albany was known for not particularly wanting a Catholic mayor
 Fixed by taking it out ... you have a point, and looking at it now it's not really important to the church's history. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Most of these paragraphs are only a couple sentences long and can probably be bunched together
I did this to the last one; the other grafs are about three sentences long each and cover distinct aspects of the church's history during this period. I think this is easier on readers. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


#### 1900-1937
Similar to the issue noted below, the archived reference does not extend far enough in history to include Gibbons' bishop appointment or Thomas Loughlin's tenure
 Fixed Swapped in the newer version of the page on the church website. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


#### 1938-present
I don't see anything about the Red Mass in the article sourced to it; this particular web archive stops listing history in the 19th century
 Fixed by using the new source. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
"due to both that decline" → "due to both existing enrollment difficulties"
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


### Services
"After the three noon Masses in the midweek days, novenas are said." → "In the three midweek days, novenas are said after noon Mass."
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Anything on Holy Day Mass times or is it too inconsistent?
I didn't see anything on their website. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


### References
I do not love the "see accompanying photos" citation, in part because it's unclear what photos these might be – in the article, or on the St. Mary's Church pages?
"Accompanying" to me means "on this page". Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
My biggest overarching concern is the reliance on a source that is currently archived incompletely, and is also something of a primary source, as it comes from the St. Mary's site itself.
While I have found newer material on the church's website, and I see your point, but ... there's just not a lot else out there. Perhaps if the NRHP nom had been more recent, there would have been more in it to make it a more credible independent source. I used what I could besides the church's website. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


### General comments
Both images are relevant and appropriately licensed
No stability concerns in the revision history
Earwig score looks good at 13.8%
Putting on hold to allow nominator to address comments, most of which have to do with some sourcing concerns that I have. Ping me if there are any questions. I am not sure how much help I can be in replacing sources if needed, as I have a fairly busy schedule and architectural research is not my strong suit. — GhostRiver 19:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@GhostRiver: OK, I've spent the past week reviewing everything and making the changes you recommended. There might be some things to discuss. Whenever you're ready. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay of a day or so, it's been a difficult time at work. Most of my remaining comments would be entirely aesthetic (I still don't love how small each paragraph is) that are, at the end of the day, a matter of personal preference. In terms of content, I think this is much improved, and I'll be happy to pass. — GhostRiver 00:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)