Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi, House church (Russia)
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
.JPG)
Church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi
- ... that the Church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi (pictured), which houses Our Lady of Vladimir, is both a house church and a museum? Source: Pretty much the whole article
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nanhaipotamon
- Comment: Because this church has made me temporarily insane, I am going to attempt to get Our Lady of Vladimir up to GA standards to make this a triple nomination (hence the qpq for my last two exempt nominations). I ask for patience in this task for the mere fact it is my birthday today,(in two hours my time) and this will be my first GAN as well.
Moved to mainspace by MJL (talk). Self-nominated at 02:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC).
This article is new enough and long enough. The image is appropriately licensed, the hook facts are mostly cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright or plagiarism issues. Could you add and cite a sentence more explicitly stating that the church is being used as a museum, perhaps in the "Recent usage" section. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I'm still waiting on Johnbod to finish the GAN for Our Lady of Vladimir. He has been made aware of this Did You Know nomination but has yet to give it a pass/fail as it has not been fully reviewed. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest you just get on with dealing with the points raised. As usual you seem to prefer raising meta-worries to actually dealing with review points. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Judging by my comments above, I think I was not aware that this was a 2 article hook. You will need to do a second QPQ, and a third one as well if/when you add Our Lady of Vladimir to the nomination. Give me a ping when you are ready and I will review all two/three articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset and Cwmhiraeth: Hey, sorry if it looked like I was ignoring this (John seemed to not appreciate my last comment). This is actually only my fourth DYK nom. One, two, and three. For some reason I burned two DYK credits when I didn't have to, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I like reviewing things. The QPQ provided is for the third article. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Judging by my comments above, I think I was not aware that this was a 2 article hook. You will need to do a second QPQ, and a third one as well if/when you add Our Lady of Vladimir to the nomination. Give me a ping when you are ready and I will review all two/three articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest you just get on with dealing with the points raised. As usual you seem to prefer raising meta-worries to actually dealing with review points. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, with MJL on a wikibreak until after the November elections, I think it's time to bring this to a conclusion. Under the circumstances, we should not wait any longer for Our Lady of Vladimir to become a GA, as that won't happen until MJL returns to do the work remaining on the nomination per the review. MJL had two more freebies with only three DYK credits to date, so the fact that they've submitted a QPQ along with this despite not needing to is fine (and they would have needed only one if the third article had made GA status). So Our Lady of Vladimir remains an unbolded link, the other two articles are still in contention, and could use your review. (I'm not sure whether your initial request for an added sentence was ever dealt with.) Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The sentence I mentioned is no longer a problem and both articles meet the DYK criteria. The hook facts are cited inline and this is good to go as a two article hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
