Template:Did you know nominations/Our Lady Of Victory Church (Inuvik)
- 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 Fram (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Our Lady Of Victory Church (Inuvik)[edit]
Our Lady of Victory Church
... that the igloo-shaped Our Lady of Victory Church (pictured) has been called the most photographed building in the Canadian Arctic town of Inuvik?
- ALT1:
... that the "Igloo Church" (pictured) is the only major building in the Canadian Arctic town of Inuvik that does not use pilings in its foundation? - ALT2:
... that the circular design and domed roof of Inuvik's igloo-shaped Our Lady of Victory Church (pictured), were responses to the possible effects of frost heave? - ALT3:
... that construction of Inuvik's "Igloo Church" (pictured) began without a building permit since Canadian government officials could not understand the untrained architect's blueprints? - Reviewed: Wahhabi sack of Karbala
- ALT1:
5x expanded by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 05:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC).
• 
No issues found with article, ready for human review.
- ✓ This article has been expanded from 418 chars to 15491 chars since 17:01, 01 July 2016 (UTC), a 37.06-fold expansion
- ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 15491 characters
- ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
- ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
- ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (13.0% confidence; confirm)
- Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
• No overall issues detected
- ✓ The media File:Front view of Our Lady of Victory Church, Inuvik, NT.jpg is free-use
- ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 137 characters
- ✓ The hook ALT1 is an appropriate length at 130 characters
- ✓ The hook ALT2 is an appropriate length at 144 characters
- ✓ The hook ALT3 is an appropriate length at 168 characters
- ✓ Daniel Case has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review of Template:Did you know nominations/Wahhabi sack of Karbala was performed for this nomination.
Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 07:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Interesting building, on good sources. Many hooks, but all a bit longish for my taste. Could we just say that the church is nicknamed Igloo Church? Nice licensed image, a great illustration. Article: can we say that a parish is a church, when "church" means a building? The caption is too long for the Main page. - Detailed article, could become a GA, I think, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Thank you. I have shortened the caption and reworded that sentence of the article intro so it makes more sense using "parish" (which I inherited when I began expanding the article). I think we could still get away with using "Igloo Church" in quotes (that'll get clicks) along with the bit about the building permit ... hence ALT3. If you think any of the other hooks would work that way, let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you! I changed the caption further, - we don't need to know if the image is from 2015 or 2010. If I word a hook we'll need a new reviewer, but I can shorten yours ;)
- ALT4:... that construction of Inuvik's circular "Igloo Church" (pictured) began without a building permit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm fine with this. I do think, though, that now that you as reviewer have suggested a new hook which I as the original nominator agreed to, we need the formality of a second review. So ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Per above. Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think we do because it's a subset of an approved hook, but you never know with DYK rulez ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm fine with this. I do think, though, that now that you as reviewer have suggested a new hook which I as the original nominator agreed to, we need the formality of a second review. So ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Stepping in to give this nomination a tick, because it's unlikely to get promoted without one. The article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The ALT4 hook is cited inline and I hope the image (which is appropriately licensed) is used. The article is neutral and seems to be free of copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
