Talk:Uppsala Cathedral

Uppsala Cathedral has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 18, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Lutheranism High‑importance

	Uppsala Cathedral is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.LutheranismWikipedia:WikiProject LutheranismTemplate:WikiProject LutheranismLutheranism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal 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.

Sweden Top‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cemeteries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries 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.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cathedral image

To anyone interested in maintenance of this page, please see the talk page of the cathedral picture; it may need to be replaced for copyright reasons, and a couple of possible alternatives are listed there. Or, if you can verify that there is license to use the image, please tag it. -- Kbh3rd 04:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contradictory dates

"inaugurated in 1435 ... It was completed within the following decades," and "When rebuilt, the Renaissance style of 1619 was modernised." Has some previous mention of building work in 1619 been deleted? The date seems to have come out of the blue. Incidentally, might a link to brick gothic be good? 213.122.48.176 (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Uppsala Cathedral/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jionpedia (talk · contribs) 18:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will review it in the next coming days. Regards, --Jionpedia ✉ 18:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, Blofeld. Hardly any flaws. I fixed the minor problems, though.

Final analysis

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Don't get it delisted! Thanks, --Jionpedia ✉ 15:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jion, Ipigott deserves most of the credit though..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IB

There has been a little to-ing and fro-ing on the thorny question of the infobox recently, with a number of IP's adding and pthers reverting. Rather than the continual slow-burn edit warring on this, could we please come to a consensus on whether there should be one included or not? In the interim, I have retirned the article to the status quo before the reverting cycle started. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info-boxes can be useful, but the one that was in situ was absurdly over-full, and no help to a visiting reader. I don't think a box is needed or desirable for this article. Tim riley (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ipigott and I decided it looked better without one. The length was ridiculous. At least it did contain info though. If it could be shrunken down with clickable sections it would be a lot more appropriate and I'd probably accept it. It was way too long to be acceptable to me though as it was.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the infobox for this article was not helpful or useful in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was very long, but I think it added structure to the article. Rather than removing it, why not shorten it down? Virtually all articles on cathedrals have infoboxes, so we would definitely be in the minority if we ruled it to only be in the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:D572:DD80:0:0:0:D572:DD80 (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, restore the infobox and shorten it down if needed. J 1982 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uppsala 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/20130929142310/http://www.uppsalacathedral.com/setupups/local/engelsk/predrikstol.htm to http://www.uppsalacathedral.com/setupups/local/engelsk/predrikstol.htm

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) 12:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]