Talk:Holy Name of Jesus Cathedral (Raleigh, North Carolina)

Catholicism Low‑importance

Holy Name of Jesus Cathedral (Raleigh, North Carolina) is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

United States: North Carolina

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina.

Excessive detail[edit]

Recent edits, first by Obrienandkeane (diff) and later by Depalmalaura (first diff and second diff), have added excessive amounts of detail about the architecture of this church. If this church were an architectural landmark, this level of detail might be appropriate, but as it is not such a landmark, this amount of detail is excessive and serves little purpose other than to promote the work of the architects. It should be noted that the architects for this project are the firm of O'Brien and Keane, making the first user an obvious case of WP:COI. Based on the similarity of the restored content, I can only assume that the second user is an employee of O&K. It should be noted that the vast majority of the detail is either completely unsourced, or is sourced to the websites of either the architectural firm or the cathedral itself.

I am opening this discussion to get the consensus of the community regarding this level of detail. I will ping the WP:WikiProject Architecture to seek some input from those users. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current level of detail is excessive, seems to promote the architectural firm, and needs citation. That said, depending on how we define the term "architectural landmark," I'm not sure that I'd agree that Holy Name is not one. It's an enormous, imposing, and distinctive building that is not only visible from much of central Raleigh, but is architecturally significant in style and materials. Some level of detail on its architecture is entirely appropriate, and at this stage in the cathedral's life—prior to its dedication—should, perhaps, even comprise a large proportion of the article. As far as paring back what is here, for now, I would suggest sticking to what can be cited, and maybe adding more pictures once it opens. Using as a template, the Washington National Cathedral, which is undoubtedly an architectural landmark, note that while there is some discussion of materials and some of the particularly noteworthy architectural features, it's not exhaustive. There are books written on its myriad other qualities. Radiotradition (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both very much for the feedback. I will seek to reduce the detail in the article, making sure it is written as objectively as possible, and provide further citations.Depalmalaura (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One would have thought with all the details about the building, one would have taken the time to acquire photographs of the building to illustrate what is being discussed. Just a thought. Farragutful (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]