Talk:Santos Passos Church

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Santos Passos Church/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: V.B.Speranza (talk · contribs) 02:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kimikel (talk · contribs) 00:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Starting review now, will be finished within the week if not sooner. Kimikel (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@V.B.Speranza: Review finished. Please review my suggestions, putting on 7 day hold - Kimikel (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I will make your suggestions, once I’m done I’ll make sure to get back to you. V.B.Speranza (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kimikel Done! V.B.Speranza (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits @V.B.Speranza. Please also see the notes left below by Ganesha811. Also, quick note, uncapitalize directions (North > north, etc). Thank you! Kimikel (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Done and done. V.B.Speranza (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@V.B.Speranza sorry to keep giving you more work, but there are still issues with the article. As Ganesha811 mentioned, https://bloguedominho.blogs.sapo.pt/701396.html is a user-published blog and is not a reliable source; it must be removed. The "Pimentel" source lacks an author and title name; just replace it with the website that that URL links to as your source. The new lead paragraph contains facts that are not sourced anywhere in the rest of the article ("Gualterianas" and "colorful lights" do not appear in the rest of the article). These either need to be removed from the lead or mentioned elsewhere in the article with a proper source. This paragraph also needs to be copyedited once that is done, as there are multiple noticeable orthographic errors. Please let me know when you implement these suggestions. Thank you. Kimikel (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Done, hope it helps. V.B.Speranza (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'm going to join here as an experienced reviewer and mentor per the backlog drive guide; either of you, please feel free to ask me any questions you may have.

Looking over the review, @Kimikel, you've done a great job covering prose and formatting. I only have two comments; first of all, the lead seems a bit short for the article - it's just a single sentence at the moment, so I would recommend expanding it. Secondly, one of the key parts of any GA review is the source review, to make sure that they are reliable, being accurately cited, and formatted correctly. I don't see any major causes for concern among the sources, but there are some minor things that need fixed (such as Pimentel 1989 missing a title and full author name, or a blog bloguedominho being used that may not be reliable). I recommend doing a pass over the citations to catch issues like these. Overall, it's a very thorough review so far! Nice work. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Considering the fact that @V.B.Speranza had incorporated the vast majority of our suggestions, I decided to be bold (as encouraged by the GAN review instructions) and make what I thought were the final edits needed for this to meet GA criteria. As such, I think it now passes a GA review. I would appreciate your appraisal our both of our work at this point; thank you in advance! Kimikel (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look over tomorrow morning and let y'all know! —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I made a couple of very minor changes. There are a few more tweaks and improvements I would suggest - adding more ISBNs to books and publications where available, adding translations of the Portuguese article/chapter/book titles to the references (there is a field for this), adding further archive links to references using IABot, adding more publishers to sources, etc, but I don't see anything major areas in need or big problems. I'd say that if you are satisfied, Kimikel, you should feel confident in passing this for GA! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

As the creator of the article, I’d like to thank you for your review. I’ll add the things you suggested. V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I've just promoted the article to GA. Thank you very much for your review, Ganesha811, and thank you and congratulations to V.B.Speranza for the good work you put into this article. Kimikel (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Six criteria

• Well-written: (see below suggestions)
• Verifiable:
• Broad:
• Neutral:
• Stable:
• Illustrated:

Lead

• Neither of its alternate names are sourced in the article.

Description

Structure

• "rectangular chancel" should be "a rectangular chancel"
• first paragraph is a run on with too many "ands," break up with some punctuation
• replace directions with fully-written words [SE->southeast], and remove wikilinks
• "The volumes are..." the volumes of what? this sentence is kind of hard to follow
• "The curves end up having little impact on the internal spatiality" is unnecessarily flowery and can be written more plainly
• It is described as being a church with “a nave with concave curves at the corners and a slight convex curve on the façade” and “serious, simple and plain ornaments”. this seems unnecessary, considering this whole paragraph is dedicated to describing the church. remove or expand

Oratories

• "Originally there was a total of seven different Oratories, however, due to the growth of the city, some had to be moved or outright destroyed." would read better as "Originally, there was a total of seven different oratories; however, due to the growth of the city, some had to be moved or outright destroyed." This also needs additional clarification: how would the expansion of the city necessitate the destruction of some oratories?

  Nowadays five Oratories remain," > "Nowadays, five oratories remain:"

• one in the Santa Maria Street > one on Santa Maria Street

Materials

• all three paragraphs are too short to stand alone, condense into one paragraph and adjust citations accordingly

History

Predecessors

• "now stands, was" > now stands was
• "and owner of..." > "and the owner of..."
• "in its place, however" > in its place; however,
• "the frontispiece's construction never began, but nevertheless" > the frontispiece's construction never began; nevertheless,
• "and the customary worship" > and customary worship
• "Oratories were constructed across the city by the Irmandade, but only"> "oratories were constructed across the city by the Irmandade; only"
• last two paragraphs should be merged into one
• article switches back and forth between full name and just Irmandade, stick to one
• "incomplete chapel, so they decided to build a wall to close it off in 1767." > "incomplete chapel; in 1767, a wall was constructed to close it off.
• "The chapel didn’t stay abandoned for long, as the Irmandade decided that they would either do a complete reconstruction of the building or just start all over and begin the construction of a completely new structure." > "The chapel did not remain abandoned for a long period of time, however; the Irmandade soon planned either the reconstruction of the building or the construction of a completely new structure."

Construction

Body and apse

• "new bigger church"> "new, larger church"
• separate the Galician Pedro... into new sentence, doesn't fit with first sentence. also what do you mean by "construction works"?
• "was made by the renowned architect"> was designed by architect. Also source there does not mention Soares' work on this church, new source is needed.
• "respected the architect's project": "project" seems like the wrong word there. maybe "plan" or "vision?"
• "On the Count of Vila Pouca Theatre, also at the Campo da Feira,"> AT the Count of Vila Pouca Theatre, also located in the Campo da Feira,
• "that the money raised could be used in aiding the construction efforts of the church"> that money could be raised to aid the construction efforts of the church
• "On 18 October 1785 the body of the church was finished and it was blessed that same year."> On 18 October 1785, the body of the church was finished; it was blessed the same year.
• "Construction of the apse only started in 1789"> Construction of the apse did not begin until 1789
• "with Soares being in charge of the whole project in" > with Soares in charge of the entire project on
• "Carvalho getting control" > Carvalho gaining control

Expansions and bell towers

• "main structure, was built" > main structure was built
• combine first paragraph with second
• "Soares' drawings and, according" > Soares' drawings. According
• "increasing the dynamic scenic effect caused by the undulation of the wall." is too flowery, consider writing in plain language
• "project by Porto's architect"> project led by portuense architect
• "Theatre was burned down on" > Theatre burned down on
• "2 years later" > two years later
• "as did its predecessor" > similarly to its predecessor
• "received out of" > received from
• "In 22 April 1863" > On 22 April 1863
• "There was plenty of attendants" > There were many in attendance
• "1875 and in 28 May of that same year" > 1875, and on 28 May of that year,
• "bells that were also blessed" > bells, which were also blessed.
• "Some deem the towers..." weasel word. who does?
• "big towers" > large towers
• merge last sentence with previous paragraph

Interior

• "painted trying to copy marble" > painted in imitation of marble
• merge these two paragraphs
• "was made by António"> was crafted by António
• "nave, by an unknown author" > nave, created by an unknown artist
• "are the transitions between the rocaille and the neoclassical styles"> are from a transitional period between the rocaille and neoclassical style
• "They were already ready in 1798, since that year the.." > They had been created sometime before 1798, when...

Modern times

Preservation status

• "have significantly changed across" > have changed significantly throughout
• "the church itself remains a testament of times long gone. It is easier for religious buildings to withstand the test of time compared to others, but thanks" delete all of this
• "to years of conservation efforts and restoration works, the building" > but due to years of conservation efforts and restoration works, the church
• "located on the" > located in the
• "the decree n°4593" > decree number 4593
• "Objective]," > Objective].

Procession of Nosso Senhor dos Passos

• merge paragraphs
• "of the Nosso Senhor" > of Nosso Senhor
• "Santos Passos and starts" > Santos Passos. It starts
• "Square) and then returns at the end back to the Santos" > Square), then returns to Santos
• "It usually takes place every year in March or April"> It usually takes place every March or April

Images

• "Santos Passos Church" shouldn't be bolded in each image caption.
• "Santos Passos Church before it having any of the bell towers.[10]" > Santos Passos Church before the construction of its bell towers

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by CSJJ104 talk 17:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Santos Passos Church in 1864

• ... that the Santos Passos Church (pictured) was built to replace a dilapidated chapel?

• Source:

Other hook, as suggested:

... that the Santos Passos Church (pictured) in Guimarães, Portugal was declared a royal chapel by King Luis I in 1878?

• Source:

• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by V.B.Speranza (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

V.B.Speranza (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC).

• The full review is to follow, but right now I have a few concerns about the nomination. The first is that, despite being a newly-promoted GA, the lede seems rather short and seems to lack mentions of some of the other parts of the article; I'd suggest beefing it up a little. The second is that the hook is admittedly rather pedestrian as it's not uncommon for religious structures to replace pre-existing ones. The article is a GA and is thus full of suitable material so I'd suggest proposing additional hooks in the meantime. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Done! V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! The article was promoted to GA status on time and it meets all of the regular DYK+GA requirements. I did not find any close paraphrasing. Since you have less than five DYK nominations a QPQ is not required. ALT1 might need some slight revisions: for example, "prerogative status" might be too specialist so an alternative, easier-to-understand phrasing could used here. The hook also doesn't make it clear it's in Portugal so that might need to be addressed to. The hook's source is in Portuguese so AGF, but a Google Translate check confirms the information. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• • • • @Narutolovehinata5: So do you suggest removing the word prerogative? I just don’t see any word that can replace it without making it even more confusing… Any hook suggestion that might solve it? V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Would just saying "was declared a royal chapel by King Luis I" give the same meaning or would the nuance be lost? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• • • • • • @Narutolovehinata5: Done. I think everything is ready now. V.B.Speranza (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
            • Just needs a mention of it being in Portugal and it should be good to go. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
              • @Narutolovehinata5: I’ve change it in a way I think it fits the phrase best, if you want you can change it in a way that suits you so we can finally conclude this. V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
                • Yeah, that should work now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
                • Note to promoter: I've just made a minor change to the hook, rewording it for grammatical reasons and including the city. Technically this would mean that another editor will need to sign off my change. However, as the location is mentioned and referenced in the article and it doesn't fundamentally change the main hook fact, I hope that this can be promoted sans a re-review per IAR. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
                  • @Narutolovehinata5: Will it take long? This has been going on for a while now… V.B.Speranza (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

References