Talk:St. Joseph's Basilica, Edmonton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] March 2007
The name of this article is incorrect. It should be "St. Joseph's Basilica". Matthew Cadrin 05:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. St. Joseph's Basilica is the name on the front of the building, and so prsumably that is the name the building goes by. So I've moved the page.Johntwrl (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
I get the feeling this was copied word-for-word from a local Catholic newspaper. It will have to be rewritten to meet our guidelines. I've tagged it. Kevlar67 (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Editing
I've started doing some serious rewriting of the article.
For the time being, I've put the material on the history of the church building and its parish into one section and everything else into a catch all section called "Other" The stuff in "Other" will need more editing and rewriting.
I've also added a list of notable people associated with the parish near the end. A lot of these people have their own articles, so this seems reasonable. Johntwrl (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
As an additional bit, the section of the history of the church would be more complete if we could get answers to the following questions.
The article mentions planning a new design in 1954. Did construction resume in that year? Or did it begin a year or two later?
The article also mentions construction halting for World War I. Did it actually stop in 1914? Or was construction halted part way through the war, say in 1915 or 1916.
I might be able to find the answer to this one, but what year did St. Joseph's become the seat of the Archdiocese. Was that in 1924? Or did that happen later? Johntwrl (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I took the part about the timeline of construction from the Real Eastate Weekly article, check their to see if there are any more specfic.
- Some quibles with with the article as is:
- Citations should go at the end of the section that they support, not by the sub-title for that section
- The phrase "architectural feature of note" is redundant. The fact should be "of note" otherwise why is in in the article? The phrase itself is just a peacock term.
- Section titles: see Wikiproject Architecture for a usfule guide to section names for architecture.
- That's all for now. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)