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

Nominator: Rufus the Unqualified (talk · contribs) 02:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 02:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at reviewing this over the next few days. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• enhance the functionality of the church this stuff is super vague, and it's not clear how, for instance, a "large chandelier" "enhances the functionality of the church" in any or either respect
• Why is so much emphasis given to who funded the 2018 restoration in the lead?
• You link Iconostasis in the body for "wall of icons" but not in the lede, this would help.
• The namesake section is undue. Should really be cut right down. See for instance St Botolph's Church, Quarrington and St Melangell's Church. You should be looking at sources discussing the namesake in relation to the Church to assess weight.
• The Battle of Leipzig section is more DUE. However, again, try to pick from sources discussing the battle from the context of the Memorial, as they will emphasise elements relevant to architecture, death toll etc. Ensure this meets academic consensus at the same time.
• Clarify initially when you say "Russia" paid for the church that this was not the state.
• "ready to be dedicated on October 17, 1913" ready to be dedicated or dedicated?
• Potrovsky designed the building with the Ascension Church [ru] in Kolomenskoye as a model → modelled the design on the...
• I think there's a fundamental issue with the layout, and I would like to wait until it is restructured before I proceed with the review. The construction section primarily pertains to design, which should be its own section. Half of the body is background, this gives undue weight off the subject of the article (the church itself). I was going to simply skip the background sections, but I am now at 1913 Context and we are back in background. I'll leave this open for a few days to see how you progress and then jump back in.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I had not actually seen this until just now (I was expecting some sort of notification). I read over your feedback just now and will begin working on it in the next couple days. If you would be able to check back in about a week, that would be much appreciated. Thanks! Rufus the Unqualified (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rufus the Unqualified, can I get an update on your progress here? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 06:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started and am working on cutting a good portion of what you suggested to cut. However, I've been a bit busier than I thought I would be. I understand if you are no longer able to review it but I will now be shooting to address the revisions you requested by Sunday April 27. Rufus the Unqualified (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take all the time you need. I may not be able to jump back into a review as soon as you have it ready but it hopefully won't be too long a delay. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pull the nomination. I've decided to take a step back from Wikipedia. Thanks for your help.Rufus the Unqualified (talk) Rufus the Unqualified (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]