Talk:Elgin Cathedral

	Elgin Cathedral is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 10, 2014.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 15, 2007 Good article nominee Listed July 3, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept August 7, 2013 Peer review Reviewed September 22, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance). Medieval Scotland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland 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.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Scotland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Historic sites Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think this article should be peer reviewed, and possibly nominated for featured article status, well done to all the contibutors! — PMJ 12:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written. Clear prose and layout.  Done

2. Accurate and verifiable. Footnotes from reliable sources.  Done

3. Broad. Major topics are covered with no unnecessary details.  Done

4. Neutral.  Done

5. Stable.  Done

6. Images. Appropriate with fair use rationale.  Done

Well done. Agree with above. This is FA material. -- SECisek 01:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clarify the meaning of the dates in the infobox? We have:

• Cathedral church established fl. x1114-1127x1131
  1224 (in present location)

and later:

• Diocese established x1114-1127x1131

It's far from clear to me what these mean. What are all the xes about? Can these be translated into a form that will be clear to the average reader? TSP 14:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been asked to give my opinion on whether this article is ready for a shot at FAC. I think that while it is a very good article, I'm afraid that there are a number of problems that might delay or fail an FAC nomination. I do however think that the article is close to the standard required and that only a few changes are needed, listed below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The first and biggest problem is the lead - it simply doesn't introduce the article. At the moment it consists of a brief introductory sentance, a detailed history of the thirteenth century history of the cathedral and then a brief mention of what came after. What is needed is a more structured introduction: 1st paragraph should explain the cathedral's state of repair, its main features and its geographic location. The 2nd paragraph should give a brief summary of its history without focusing too heavily on any one feature. If there are is outstanding information required in the lead then it can go in a third paragraph.
• "Gregoir is the Latinised version of the native name Grig or Giric and alludes to the possibility that he may have been the latest of a succession of Picto-Celtic appointees of the mormaers of Moray" - how does it allude to this? Is Grig ye olde Scottish for something?
• "Completion was after 1242 but in 1270, according to the chronicler Fordun, the cathedral church and the canons’ houses had burned down but no reason was given" - these events do not complement each other and each should be in a seperate sentence.
• Why are the blockquotes so small? They are hard to read.
• "The cathedral has a Biblical garden" - This is what I call a "so what?". There is no context, its just a fact thrown in without consideration for the article's narrative flow. That's not to say that it isn't interesting or should be removed, just that it should be positioned in the correct place within the article and given its full context: firstly, there is room to briefly explain what it is. Secondly, when was it laid out. Thirdly, what form does it take? At the moment, the simple bare fact means nothing to a reader.
• Add a link to Prebendary
• Although it isn't irrelevant per se, the entire section "Diocesan organisation" seems much more closely related to the article Diocese of Moray and could stand to be trimmed a little here. Its very technical and doesn't seem to be directly related to the Cathedral itself.
• There are some grammar problems which need a good copyedit to iron out, for example "only Chichester Cathedral, in England have similar aisles." and "demonstrates how extensively damaged the 1390 attack had been".
• Some people at FAC make a fuss about articles with images on both sides of the article squeezing the text. I think this is a bit pedantic and disagree, but be warned that it might be mentioned.

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elgin Cathedral/archive1

There's a harv error with Cowan 1967. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a what? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is apparently no citation that points to Cowan 1967—either the reference wasn't used or a citation template in the body has an error in it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not sure where it would be, but i think cite template errors are usually very obvious. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 06:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The error shows up under the User:Ucucha/HarvErrors script. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note how impressed I am with this article. In particular, the table of figures at the bottom is very useful, but the whole article is detailed. Well done! Brutannica (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elgin Cathedral. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928001045/http://www.britannia-picture.com/search.php?searchstring=Elgin&go=Go! to http://www.britannia-picture.com/search.php?searchstring=Elgin&go=Go%21

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]