Template:Did you know nominations/Saint George Greek Orthodox Cathedral

 The following is an archived discussion of Saint George Greek Orthodox Cathedral's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC).

Saint George Greek Orthodox Cathedral

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Saint George Greek Orthodox Cathedral is the oldest extant church of Beirut?

Created by Elie plus (talk). Self nominated at 22:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC).

• ALT1: ... that archaeological excavations carried out under Beirut's Saint George Greek Orthodox Cathedral led to the discovery of ancient artifacts and vestiges that are now housed in a crypt museum?
• ALT2: ... that Beirut's Saint George Greek Orthodox Cathedral was built on the site of earlier 5th century and 12th century AD churches?

• ALT3: ... that the Anastasis church, a precursor to Beirut's Saint George Greek Orthodox Cathedral was destroyed by a massive earthquake in 551 AD?

• ALT4: ... that Beirut's Saint George Greek Orthodox Cathedral sits on the vestiges of three earlier church structures dating back as early as the 5th century AD?

• New: created 17 March. Sufficient length: approx. 4,600 characters in main prose section. Within policy: Unable to read Arabic sources, but overall seems to be drawn from a broad range of news media, tourist guides, and primary sources. Appears to be adequately cited, neutral and free of copyvio etc. Format: All alternatives are below 200 characters. Content: Broadly, I'd support ALT4 over the others, as this hook begs questions that the others do not and invites the reader to visit the page. ALT3 doesn't really relate directly to the article subject (struck out). ALT2 mentions only two churches and is more a simple statement of fact. ALT1 is a little dull and verbose. The original suggestion, while invoking a superlative, does rather act as a self-contained fact and invites no further investigation. All facts drawn within the hook are cited, although the 5th century date for the first church's construction (rather than its 6th century destruction) seems to rely on the offline museum source, accepted in good faith. Pyrope 05:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• The name of the article may need to change to Saint George Greek Orthodox Church, Beirut..since there are many saint George Greek Orthodox churches. And why not put a picture up for the DYK? The licensing looks good. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Name was changed, image added, thanks for your input. Eli+ 12:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I am missing a QPQ here. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• [Note: comment has been commented out by Elie plus.]

• That comment appears to be completely uncalled-for. According to your user page, you've had nine DYKs, and are thus subject to the WP:DYK#Review requirement. Don't accuse others of bad faith for correctly pointing out that you have not listed a QPQ review. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• i thought Mentoz was referring to me sharing favors with reviewers... my bad, i apologize. I have been away for so long, QPQ requirement is something that i forgot about (don't even remember it was required). Eli+ 22:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• No worries, I could have explained it better (like Mandarax did). Mentoz86 (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's been over a week. I was wondering how soon the review of another nomination was going to be done, so this one can proceed? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• I suck at reviewing my own articles, how am I to review others'. That's why i ask for peer review. -Eli+ 13:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's sometimes easier to see the problems in other articles that aren't apparent in your own, because you know the material better. In any event, this is not optional: if you wish to nominate your articles for DYK, you have to complete a review of someone else's article before yours can be approved. You have two other articles submitted, including one just a little while ago, so if any of these three are to make it to the front page, you'll have to start sometime soon. There's a reviewing guide, and two pages of rules, here and here. (The rules, since they apply to everyone's nominations, are useful to know regardless.) When I started at DYK, reviewing seemed quite daunting: what helped was starting with articles that looked (and were) very straightforward until I gained confidence after successfully completing a few reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Okay... that wasn't so bad -Eli+ 04:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• So with Elie Plus reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Harran al-Awamid does that mean this can go on? -- Esemono (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Now that the QPQ is done, this nomination is good to go per the original review. Mentoz86 (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)