This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
You're right with the first point; my mistake. Thanks for fixing it.
A lot of journal articles are restricted (or have no) access online. That doesn't mean that you can't access them, but you may have to take a trip to the library to see them rather than just clicking on a link. I'm pretty sure that a journal article meets the definition of a reliable source. I'm far more worried about the random webpages that I've referenced than that...
Ok, I have no problem with the journal article as such. But if it's not accessible online, I'd give just the journal name, volume, year, page number(s), as one would do with a book. A link implies the full contents is available behind the link. Jotel (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added the info from the references. It's a bit depressing that all the council is doing about the building is correcting how it is included in the meeting minutes. :-/ Thanks for the links. Mike Peel (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has passed the GA noms. Further suggestions for improvements would be to expand the article to reflect this structures current usage, and architectural significance. If you feel that this review is in error feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Thanks. Tarret talk20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Upper Brook Street Chapel, Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.