Talk:Church of the Little Flower (Coral Gables, Florida)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs)09:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this for review. I will post my comments soon.

Infobox

• Fill in all aspects of the infobox when known. You can fill out the website, dedication, functional status, status, location)
• I would include an image of a map showing the location of Coral Gables either in Florida or the U.S. (With the caption either “Location in Florida” or “Location in the United States”)

Lead

• Image needs an alt and put it as “upright”
• Put a source for the caption
• The image seems more appropriate for a section on the architecture. Is there a particular reason why an Architecture section is not present in this article? This sort of section or something about the design seems very important for an article about a building.
• Include information about the church’s history in the lead. The lead needs to be representative of the entire article and you do not cover the “History” section.
• Include the information about the architecture being designed with consideration to that of the rest of the city. You do not put new information in the lead. This information is good, but needs to be in the body of the article as well.
• Restructure the second sentence for clarity. Your current phrasing reads very awkwardly. It may be better to separate it into two sentences.
• Link United States presidential election, 2016 either in lead or discussion of Rubio and Bush in the body of the article.
• Replace “The Rubios” with “Rubio and his wife Jeanette Dousdebes”. Link to his wife. Again, make sure this information is present elsewhere in the article. Do not put information in just the lead.

History

• Clarify “the newly established town” as “the then newly established town”
• Fix dashes or replace with commas or parenthesis for the identification of Patrick J. Barry.
• Restructure the first sentence of the second paragraph as it reads very awkwardly. Make it clearer with more concise language. It may need to be separated into two sentences.
• Link parochial school
• Change “until replaced” to “until being replaced by”
• Spell out Rev. Msgr. Thomas P. Comber’s designation (Reverend Monsignor)
• Replace “Also in 1987” with “In the same year” and clarify “across the street”. What street are you talking about it? It sounds far too informal as it currently stands so specifying the street would make it more appropriate.
• Spell out Reverend for Michael W. Davis.

Cultural shifts

• Image needs an alt and put it as “upright”
• Who perceived membership as a “gateway to social advancement”? Be specific.
• Add a comma after 1990.
• Restructure the sentence introducing Kenneth Whittaker as it reads awkwardly. You identify him twice in different ways. I would cut the sentence into two. Identify Whittaker first and then introduce and then discuss the rift being formed. You can try to keep it one sentence, but it needs revision.
• Remove comma after escalated
• Do you have any sources about the resolution of the rift between Whittaker and the parents? You leave this part unresolved so find something to expand it.
• Change “More than half of the parish and more than half of the children” to “More than half of the parish and children”
• Who or how did the church become connected with the Republican Party? Who are the people making these connections? Be specific. This sentence can be slightly expanded.
• I would remove the sentence about the “Republican Party” from that paragraph (as it appears to be more about Cuban members of the parish.) A section about the connection to the Republican Party would be very helpful as it seems important, but very underdeveloped. You reference the connection between Cubans and the Republican Party a little in the lead, but make the connection very clear and supported here.
• Use Caterine’s full name
• Add comma after 1999
• Remove comma after Lisieux and add “as part”

Notable parishioners

• Use Jenette’s full name
• Replace “the Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio families” to “both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio’s families”
• The section could use expansion. Has Rubio or Bush made any comments about the church? Has any one else made any comments about Rubio or Bush with connection to the church?
• I do not think “Notable parishioners” is the best title for this section as you are only discussing the two presidential candidates. Either add other notable parishioners (I am assuming there are others if this church is so prestigious) or rename the section.

Church of the Little Flower Pastors

• Remove this list (I am always opposed to embedded lists except when absolutely necessary). Put notable pastors in the “History” section with sources.

References

• Correct source number 3 (Problem with external link).
• While not required, I would highly recommend archiving all the links to avoid dead/broken links in the future.

Final comments

• @E.M.Gregory: I would strongly advise expanding the article. There are certain elements of the article that need expansion (as stated in the above comments) and sentences that need restructured (also stated above) in order this article to be passed. I would look for more information regarding the Architecture/Design and the connection to the Republican Party. Good job work overall, just could use more information.
  • @E.M.Gregory: Just as a reminder, I will fail the article if you do not respond within seven days of my review (which would be around March 17th). This article needs some work in terms of expansion and clarification, but it is very close to being on the level of a GA. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • User:Aoba47 You did a wonderful job evaluating the article and I am grateful for the attention you paid to this interesting and significant parish, and I know that this is entirely my fault for nominating it in the first place, but the truth is that I haven't the time to do the needed edits. Perhaps your excellent suggestions could be left where some more diligent editor could find and fulfill them. I cannot promise to do it, and for that I apologize.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
      • @E.M.Gregory: I completely understand and there's no reason to apologize for anything. The article was a very interesting and informative read so I am glad that I had the chance to review it. I am glad that you found my comments helpful and I will see if I can find someone else to address the suggestions. Good luck with all the things keeping you busy and it was pleasure speaking to you. I hope I did not come across as rude, I just wanted to remind you of this review as it is very easy to forget about all the stuff on here in the shuffle of everyday life. Aoba47 (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Verdict

• I think it is best to fail this article to allow anyone willing to revise and expand it as much time as they need.This article has a lot of potential so I hope this does not discourage the nominator or anyone else from working on this and nominating it again in the future. Good luck with future work on the article and I would definitely review this page again if it is nominated again in the future. ✗ Fail