Wikipedia:Peer review/First Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
| This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to submit it as a Featured Article.
Thanks, ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
FAC PR sidebar
[edit]@Darth Stabro: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. I also see that you are working towards your first successful FAC. I suggest getting a mentor who can comment on this PR, and to review articles at WP:FAC now to build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers and help with understanding the FA criteria. Thanks and happy editing. Z1720 (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
RoySmith
[edit]- With the first image on the left side of the page, you'll almost certainly run into MOS:SANDWICH problems opposite the infobox.
- In 1840, Catholic missionary Father Lucien Galtier was sent by Bishop Mathias Loras of Dubuque to minister to the French Canadians in Minnesota. If I'm reading the history right, there was no Minnesota in 1840. It would have been part of Wisconsin Territory, no?
- using red and white oak logs I know you mean red oak and white oak, but many readers may think this means "oak logs which had been painted either red or white", so rephrase to make this more clear.
- The chapel cost around $65 ($2,516 in 2025) in labor to build. the source just says "cost about $65" but doesn't specify that was the labor cost.
- It continued to be used for religious purposes, having begun to be used as a Sisters of St. Joseph school in November 1851 Is "it" the first or the second chapel?
That's all I've got. This is a really short article; while there's no lower bound on the length of a FA, I would not be surprised if some reviewers will complain about this, so just be prepared for that. RoySmith (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Darth Stabro It's been two weeks since I commented, with no response from you. What would you like to do here? RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: Sorry, Easter week was a busy time for me. I should have a bit of time next week to get to these, thank you. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
- My apologies for the delay.
- Would you recommend simply removing that image?
- Reworded.
- Do you think linking it will provide that context (which is what I have done). "Red oak and white oak" seems a bit unwieldy as prose.
- Changed source.
- Clarified.
- Thank you! ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I moved the image to the right. Now it floats down below the infobox, which I think is fine. Do you really need such a large infobox; it kind of overwhelms the rest of the article. You might also want to split the History section into smaller sections if you could find some logical division point. Both of these things might help with the image layout.
- As for the red and white oak, maybe just say "oak". The two major divisions of the genus are the red oaks and the white oaks, so if they used both kinds, there's no real value is saying so. RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Darth Stabro Nobody has commented a almost two weeks, so maybe you should consider closing this? But before you do, I noticed the "Modern-day commemorative plaques" photos. Are you sure there's no copyright issues? Even though you took the photos, the underlying signs may have their own copyright; I've had problems with that in the past. You should ask the experts at commons. If there's going to be a problem, better to find it out early than get dinged at WP:FAC. RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- No response in 5 days, closing. RoySmith (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Darth Stabro Nobody has commented a almost two weeks, so maybe you should consider closing this? But before you do, I noticed the "Modern-day commemorative plaques" photos. Are you sure there's no copyright issues? Even though you took the photos, the underlying signs may have their own copyright; I've had problems with that in the past. You should ask the experts at commons. If there's going to be a problem, better to find it out early than get dinged at WP:FAC. RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Aterbiou
[edit]Minor comment: The lead says it was a cathedral from "June 1851 to December 1851", but body says "in July 1851, the log chapel became the first cathedral". Should the lead be corrected to "July"? Aterbiou (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Good spot, thank you. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Olliefant
[edit]- "of the capital city of Minnesota, Saint Paul." -> "of Saint Paul, the capital of Minnesota"
- Link Minnesota
- larger, second cathedral" cut larger from he link
- Cut the see also links as they are included in the article
- Add a mention of the poem to the article
- Add a mention of the later versions to the lead as well as the poem