Talk:Church of St Demetrius, Patalenitsa

Enjoyable

What an interesting, well written article!

I would like to know:

• What was the name of the church before it was rededicated to St Demetrius? Was this present church originally dedicated to St Pantaleon like the first one?
• If this is indeed the second church on the site, is there any indication of the date of the earlier church? Are there archaeological remains?

Amandajm (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the interest! Unfortunately, there's little I can tell you that would answer your questions. Apparently, there are no clues as to what the previous name of the church would have been, even Zahariev in his 19th-century book specifically says that. Indeed, one plausible guess would be that it continued the naming tradition of St Pantaleon from the earlier church. As for the Church of St Pantaleon, there's nothing on its dating in Zahariev, who as far as I know is the only one to write of it. He does say, though, that the St Pantaleon was previously an Ancient Greek sanctuary of Asclepius and he makes that assumption based on archaeological remains. I've added that bit to the article. However, remember to take his writings with a grain of salt, as enthusiastic as he was, he was after all just a 19th-century amateur historian and patriot :)

I've written a few other articles on medieval Bulgarian churches in the last few days, if you're interested in that topic you might want to read Church of Saints Peter and Paul, Nikopol and Church of St Nicholas, Sapareva Banya, which are rather similar to this one. There's more to come! :) Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 18:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Church of St Demetrius, Patalenitsa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: One found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead could do with a little expansion to more fully summarize the article, see WP:LEAD Done

   I made one minor copy-edit.[2]. Otherwise the prose is fine

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article is sufficiently referenced. I assume good faith for the Bulgatian sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Enough detail to cover major points

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images licensed and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for the lead issue to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

   Just what was needed, I am now happy to pass this a GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the review! I have expanded the intro per your suggestion. — Toдor Boжinov — 09:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)