Template:Did you know nominations/San Ignacio Church of Intramuros

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 Fuebaey (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

San Ignacio Church of Intramuros edit

Created by Charles Boris Manez (talk). Nominated by Carlojoseph14 (talk) at 10:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC).

  • The idea that FR, Sr. was the "first Filipino architect" appears to rely solely on a plaque at the site -- this is an extraordinary claim needing a rocksolid authoritative source. EEng (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, missed those somehow. At ease. EEng (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Is it now good to go? --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Add QPQ. @EEng:. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
As nothing happened in a while I'm taking over. Interesting article on good sources, offline source accepted AGF. - Name: If it was my article, the name would be San Ignacio, Intramuros, but up to you and Filipino naming conventions. - I did a bit of formatting. - Without the giant map, I think the article would look nicer, but up to you. - The headers about sites probably mean buildings on the same site? - Please add to the lead that it is in ruins. - I added a pic, think we can skip "Sr." if we specify "the first", skip Manila if we have Filipino, and get to

San Ignacio Church ruins

ALT1: ... that the fourth San Ignacio Church in Intramuros, now in ruins (pictured), was designed by Felix Roxas, the first recorded Filipino architect? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The length, date of creation and copyvio check all seem fine (Earwig's tool suggests a copyvio, but that's a website which mirrors this article, and not the other way around). However, I also take issue with the wording of the hook. Two of the sources you've presented above (including the one used in the inline citation of the article) say that he was the first recorded architect, not that he was the first architect. I know that seems to be the same thing, but there could be a big difference between the two. Could you please change the article and the hook to include the word 'recorded,' as in the citations? Alternatively, you could use a different hook if desired.-RHM22 (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@RHM22:, please see changes. Added the word recorded to the hook and article. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks good now! As stated above, date, length, copyvio check are fine, and the hook is interesting and cited to a reliable online source.-RHM22 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)