Talk:Gates of Heaven Synagogue

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Bruxton talk 16:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates of Heaven Synagogue, Madison, Wisconsin
Gates of Heaven Synagogue, Madison, Wisconsin
  • ... that the oldest surviving synagogue building (pictured) in Wisconsin was almost razed in the 1970s? Source: Weisiger, Marsha. Esperdy, Gabrielle; Kingsley, Karen (eds.). "Historic Shaare Shomaim Synagogue (Gates of Heaven Synagogue)". SAH Archipedia. Society of Architectural Historians. Retrieved January 18, 2024.
    • Reviewed: no QPQ necessary; this is my 2nd DYK nomination.

5x expanded by Vami IV (talk) and Sawyer-mcdonell (talk). Nominated by Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) at 23:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Gates of Heaven Synagogue; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Note: added a preexisting source to the sentence where claim is made in article, otherwise good. 5x expanded, QPQ unnecessary, interesting hook, no copyvio. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gates of Heaven Synagogue/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chilicave (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interested to review this article over the next few days!

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

A beautifully written article. I was quite impressed with the fact that the article was written like one big timeline (something I can learn from). Deserves a pass.

Thanks so much for your review !!! This was a big project and a whole lot of fun to research, so I'm glad you enjoyed the article :) sawyer * he/they * talk 04:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]