Template:Did you know nominations/Transfiguration of our Lord Parish Church (Cavinti)
- 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) 18:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Transfiguration of our Lord Parish Church (Cavinti)[edit]
... that the Cavinti Church was built on the site where the image of El Salvador was found by the two Puhawan brothers of Lumban in the early 1600s?
Created/expanded by Carlojoseph14 (talk). Nominated by Shhhhwwww!! (talk) at 23:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC).
too short at present. It has 1200 characters and it nneds at least 1500 characters. Its a really interesting location so do make it a bit bigger. Victuallers (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- (alt)
... that the Transfiguration of our Lord Parish Church was built where an image of Christ was found in the Philippines? 
I have added to its length so someone else needs to review Victuallers (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Both hooks rely on a single unreliable source. Beyond that, the nom was seven days after the article was moved into mainspace. The article was expanded fivefold, is long enough, and is within policy. Both hooks meet length requirements and repeat something mentioned in the article and the source material. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I personally don't think that both source is unreliable since this source is the official website of the Local Government Unit of Cavinti. I would like to propose an ALT
- ALT2:... that the first stone church of Cavinti in the Philippines, built in 1621, was severely damaged by a Chinese uprising? Carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've struck the original hook and the ALT hook because they both state these as facts, rather than legends, which is what both sources call them. Incidentally, one source copied the other, so if the government source is the reliable one, I think you need to drop the other one (weebly.com) and any information that came from it. However, my concern is that the article is embroidering on the sources. For example, the legend says that the brothers took the image home, and quickly lost it. The article adds "despite placing it in a memorable place", which is not sourced, but an assumption. There's also something wrong with the following sentence: the sources say they found the image again where they had found it the first time (in Cavinti), not where they'd placed it the first time (in their home in Lumban). As noted in a previous nomination, I doubt biyahero.net is a reliable source; travel sites rarely are. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- * I dropped the Weebly site (which is an official page maintained by the Knights of the Altar of the Church) and retained the government source. Removed the phrase, "despite placing it in a memorable place". Resolved issue on where the image was found again per sources. Removed biyahero.net as a reliable source. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reviewer needed to check ALT2 hook and also that the recent edits have taken care of the issues raised above. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks okay to me, the hook is cited by the 'Historic Markers' book and is interesting. It could go as it is but would be beneficial to add the word Philippines into the hook e.g. "... that the first stone church of Cavinti, Philippines, built in 1621 was severely damaged by a Chinese uprising?" Sionk (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Edited hook to reflect inclusion of "the Philippines" --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: added commas around "built in 1621" in the ALT2 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)