The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Cathedral of Our Lady of Seven Sorrows, Suzhou

The facade of the Cathedral of Our Lady of Seven Sorrows, Suzhou

• ... that this cathedral (pictured) in Suzhou is known for its "hybridity" of Chinese and Western architecture? Source: ResearchGate. Pan, Yiting & Wang, Jun & Chen, Xi. (2021). Eclecticism and Expediency: "Hybridity" of Sino-Western Building Construction in the Yangjiaqiao Catholic Church in Suzhou. Huazhong Jianzhu - HJ/Huazhong Architecture. 39. 127-132. 10.13942/j.cnki.hzjz.2021.09.026.
  • Reviewed:

Created by TheLonelyPather (talk). Self-nominated at 14:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - I'm probably not the best judge for this, since I can't read Chinese, so I can't tell.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - I have a concern about the citation, and that is when I clicked on it, it asked me to download a document.
• Interesting: - Not really to me.

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed: - On the description for the picture, it says: " This illustration was made by Peter Potrowl. Please credit this with : © Peter Potrowl in the immediate vicinity of the image. A link to my website sitemai.eu would be much appreciated but isn't mandatory. An email to Peter Potrowl would be appreciated too. Do not copy this image illegally by ignoring the terms of the license below, as it is not in the public domain. If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the image please contact me Peter Potrowl to negotiate terms. More free pictures in my website. Donations are accepted here and here. - Own work"
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px:

Overall: My two main concerns are the image use, and the citation for the hook. I think we'll need another editor to look over this. Helloheart (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, Helloheart. I am thinking of taking down the image since it is not in the public domain. I have fixed the citation so that it does not lead you to a download page. Any suggestions for alternative hooks? TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hello TheLonelyPather, and I think this is rather interesting:

ALT1... that the Cathedral of Our Lady of Seven Sorrows suffered a flood in 1991, then became listed as a culturally protected site of Suzhou that year? ^[1][2]

• Hi, thanks for the suggestion. I'm gonna list yours here as an alternative hook. I added "ALT1" to your comment for other reviewers. Also, how should I remove the image from the DYK nomination? TheLonelyPather (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Regarding the image, I don't see any issues with the license. There is no requirement that an image be public domain, just that it's appropriately licensed. WP:DYKIMG explicitly calls out GFDL as one of the acceptable licenses, and that's what's on the image's common's page. The additional text in the big grey box doesn't change that fact that it's GFDL. Actually, it's dual-licensed under both GFDL and CC BY 3.0, either of which is acceptable. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

PS, by "OK", I mean "acceptably licensed". I don't think it's a great image for the main page aesthetically. It's not terrible, but I'd hope we could find something better. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you RoySmith. TheLonelyPather, Helloheart, the image is suitably licensed so it does not need to be removed. TSventon (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Helloheart: what's happening with this nomination? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Helloheart and Theleekycauldron: I recommend a full re-review for this nomination, which would benefit from an experienced reviewer as it includes an image and foreign language sources. Helloheart is fairly new to DYK, with one successful and one successful nomination and this review, which seems to be mistaken, both about the image and the link to Researchgate in the citation for the hook. TSventon (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid I don't agree, TSventon. Yes, Helloheart needs to learn the ropes, but it's not like this is a particularly tricky or complex nomination. When reviewers make mistakes (something "experienced" reviewers do quite often), our reaction shouldn't be to yank the nomination away from them. The higher levels of re-review find flaws, and we let the reviewer that this is something they should be watching out for in the future. If you replace a reviewer every time they make a mistake, they'll never learn. It's okay to be wrong, make mistakes, and learn from them. I'd like Helloheart to finish their handling on this nomination, and I will check over their work when they are done. That sound good to you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron:, I have no objection to Helloheart having another go, but the nomination has been re-reviewed so it will now be able to proceed anyway. I agree that making mistakes is part of the learning process. I didn't "yank the nomination away" as Helloheart left it with a new review icon a month ago. TSventon (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

RC Patroller note: the above 2 comments were removed by TheLonelyPather, and have been restored. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 00:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• • I'll review. Article was nominated day of creation. Meets length requirement (over 1,800 chars). No neutrality issues. Earwig is down but don't suspect any issues. AGF on the Chinese-language sources; the Chinese government sources are in English and support uncontroversial facts. No QPQ required (nominator's first DYK).

  I have a few suggestions to improve the article, but all minor and shouldn't stop the nom being approved: The second sentence of the lede basically duplicates ALT0; could this be rewritten as a more detailed summary of the body paragraph or just removed? Are there appropriate links to add to the references current without them? Add date of founding to infobox? What is the relevance of note 'a' (and is "likely a misinterpretation" your speculation)?

  ALT0 is interesting to me (I capitalized "Western", "between" → "of", and added "(pictured)"); again AGF while noting that the title of the ref appears by itself to support the fact. Less keen on ALT1, but AGF on the accuracy (noting that the article does not establish the chronology that the proposed hook uses). The image is striking and I think illustrates ALT0 well; it is appropriately licensed. overall! Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Hello Hameltion, thank you for bring the issue of the lede to my attention. I agree with you and I will work on it. Also extra thanks for the review! TheLonelyPather (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)