Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery

St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery

This article is currently listed as meeting all of the Good Article criteria, and after going over the all of the Featured Article criteria, I believe that it too, meets the all of the points mentioned there. It lists the major aspects, such as geography, history, and architecture. And I hope that you will also find it fit. —dimæ ^{[diskussion—archiv]} 18:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and Support per above. —dimæ ^{[diskussion—archiv]} 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Without being unduly long, it is comprehensive and interesting. The article is also superbly enhanced with images of the Monastery.--Riurik ^(discuss) 19:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- you might want to consider expanding the lead to better summarize the content of the rest of the article, see WP:LEAD. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the lead, thanks for pointing that out. —dimæ ^{[diskussion—archiv]} 21:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per dima. Odessaukrain 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good article. -- mno 01:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commment seems rather short and to have extremely few sources cited.Rlevse 02:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per above, good article abakharev 03:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is the reason for having translit there? Also, in the intro St. Michael's Golden-Domed Cathedral is Mykhaylivs’ka zolotoverkha katedra, later it's Mykhaylivskyi Zolotoverhyi Cathedral. Incidentally, katedra is not Ukrainian proper. Sashazlv 04:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any harm to have it there. I mean, Mykhaylivs’kyi zolotoverkhyi monastyr really is a translit...so why not write it out? Also, what would you suggest to change katedra to? Sobor? —dimæ ^{[diskussion—archiv]} 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Good overall, but what is Hewryk's work being used to support? It's included in the references, but with no indication of how or where its information has been referred to. That should be addressed. I'd also suggest dropping the "General" subsection there altogether after you've identifed where Hewryk's work applies in the "Inline" subsection. That particular style is really only necessary when you're using a ton of references to the same work (specifically, different pages from a single work) and have a bibilography (see Ketuanan Melayu for an example). Given how little they're being used in this case, it wouldn't harm anything to simply drop the "General" section, and would prevent any confusion as to whether or not further information from the works had been used without citations being added. Ryu Kaze 23:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've fixed the article by your suggestions (adding refs to statements listed in Hewryk's article, and others' articles; dropping the General section). —dimæ ^{[diskussion—archiv]} 23:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support — Alright, that settles my main concern, though you really can just remove the three bullets for Hewryk's, Malikenaite's and Pavlovsky's works since they're already mentioned. Ryu Kaze 02:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A very nice article which makes me want to get over to Kiev to see it. However I think it could do with a few more inline citations, for example the statement "Some scholars believe that Prince Iziaslav Yaroslavych, whose Christian name was Demetrius, first built the Saint Demetrius's Monastery and Church in the Uppertown of Kiev near Saint Sophia Cathedral in the 1050s" should have a citation. Rhion 16:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've added references to this statement, and might add some more refs to the article. Thanks for your comment, —dimæ ^{[diskussion—archiv]} 21:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support. Thanks. Rhion 09:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite the care and attention shown during the removal of the mosaics from the cathedral's walls, the relocated mosaics cannot be relied upon as being absolutely authentic." Why is that? This isn't even cited. Everyking 08:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't exactly know why it is like that. Perhaps because some frescoes may be damaged, and/or havinh some parts replaced? But I cited it, as you suggested. Thanks, —dima/s-ko/ 01:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]