Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/San Diego California Temple/1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I was psyched to see this at GA – I used to live right by here, saw it all the time going down the I-5. But I think this article has several problems that should've been caught at GAN:

• Articles have to be based on independent sources. This article relies heavily, possibly primarily, on Church News, a publication that is not independent of the LDS Church, plus the Church itself.
• Until recently, the article claimed that the church temple had more spires than any other – sourced to the church itself, which is bad, and failing verification, which is worse.
• I see at least a couple instances of close paraphrasing – president Ezra Taft Benson made his first trip outside the Salt Lake Valley, Connecting the towers at the center is a star-shaped atrium filled with a ... garden, and The San Diego California Temple is the 45th operating temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are all exact matches.
• Do sources like templestudy.com, bookoftemples.com, okland.com, and ldsliving.com have editorial control?

There might be other problems, especially in the CLOP and verification departments – I didn't check. I will note that the initial reviews did not do a spot check and were thus facially incomplete. I wish I had a more favorable position here, but I think this should probably be delisted and go through the GA process anew, given the breadth of the problems here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Delist - Full disclosure, I was in a voice call with @Theleekycauldron when this was discovered, but I found additional close paraphrasing via earwig's, and caught the spire quote being not in source Heyallkatehere (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment - I will not vote on this as I was the one who reviewed it, but in general I don't think the problem of independent sourcing can be helped. The other issues seem decently small and can be fixed with a few edits, but for such a niche topic I don't see really any other way to get decent information on it other then such sources like Church News. I also would like to mention that the nominator has basically exclusively worked on LDS-related articles, ie. creating many of them, editing them and rating them, so there is a possible undisclosed COI. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry I completely failed to do my due diligence here - I prompted a spot check with a couple examples, which I believe Ilov3gam3z followed through on as references pointing to the Silver Anvil Award and membership of the temple leadership were identified as not matching the text. I am not well versed in the LDS Church but assumed the temple's closed-off nature made it very difficult for an author to find independent sources that discuss it in depth. This is more of a problem with the awards it supposedly received than the description of architectural elements (internally) and daily goings-on of the temple in my view. But I will admit to not looking at many of the sources. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delist - I see quite a lot of coverage of this temple in newspapers.com, I clipped two articles at random to help demonstrate what I mean, but there are plenty more to sort through: (1) Wheeler, Carla (1993-03-03). "New Mormon temple". The San Bernardino County Sun. pp. A1A2. Retrieved 2026-06-08 – via Newspapers.com. (2) Frank, Jeff (1993-02-19). "New Mormon temple a treat for the eyes". Daily Times-Advocate. pp. B1B8. Retrieved 2026-06-08 – via Newspapers.com. Less critically, the text to me reads like a timeline in many places; I think this could be smoothed out with more narrative (and additional details from new sources would help create that connective tissue). Zzz plant (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks to all reviewers for the feedback. This is my first GA nomination, and I appreciate the detailed review.

  I understand the concerns raised regarding independent sourcing, close paraphrasing, verifiability, and narrative cohesion and would like to start addressing each of those.

  Regarding source usage, the source guide for the Latter Day Saint movement notes that Church News "might be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, but avoid using it as a source for exceptional claims. In general, a secondary source with a stronger consensus for reliability is preferred."

  Silver Anvil Award – I believe the newly added sources support this claim, including:

  https://www.deseret.com/1994/7/21/19120967/lds-church-wins-award-for-temple-open-house/ (Per the Latter Day Saint movement source guide, Deseret News is generally considered reliable, although there is no consensus regarding its independence from the LDS Church. As such, it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. )

  https://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=wiarchives;view=reslist;subview=standard;didno=uw-whs-us0064af;focusrgn=C02;cc=wiarchives;byte=965472743 (Public Relations Society of America Records, 1986–2014, University of Wisconsin–Madison Libraries)

  COI – I am a member of the Church. I understand that COI does not preclude editing, provided contributions are consistent with NPOV and supported by reliable, independent sources. I have attempted to adhere to these standards throughout the article.

  On another note, my understanding is that articles must be verifiable, well-sourced, broad in coverage, and compliant with core content policies. While FA-class articles are generally expected to meet a higher standard of comprehensiveness and source quality, GA status does not require the same level of exhaustive sourcing or scrutiny associated with FAC. Nevertheless, I will continue working to strengthen the article's sourcing and prose in response to the concerns raised here. Happyrain2121 (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  While I agree with many of the things you have brought up here, at the very least you should have done a WP:DCOI (Disclose COI). As you seem to specifically edit articles about the LDS church, and are part of the LDS church, you should put a COI userbox on your userpage and a connected contributor box on the talk page of the article's you edit. You should also note this when doing AFC, which I have noticed you do a lot of. On sourcing though I mostly agree that what you sourced from LDS-connected sources was uncontroversial, although more independent sourcing would look a slight bit better. @Zzz plant: @Theleekycauldron: @Heyallkatehere: I am pinging the delisters because I feel you have made a decent argument. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  Also, I am adding connected contributor to the article for full disclosure. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know that being a member of the LDS Church presumes that you have a conflict of interest with all topics related to it. There certainly isn't a precedent for that with any other religion (though I don't have as much experience in this specific field either). Several paid editors from Brigham Young University have written Good Articles on subjects related to the Church (see Rachel Helps (BYU), Skyes(BYU)) and those articles haven't needed {{Connected contributor}} templates. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that being a member of the church doesn't necessarily entail a conflict of interest. But I think there's some confusion here on independence vs. reliability. Church News may be somewhat reliable, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not independent, and articles must be based on independent sourcing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

  I did not know that I need to do a Disclose COI being a member of the church. I can do so if that it is confirmed to be required. Also, I agree with the differences between independence vs. reliability and will keep that in mind for revisions. Happyrain2121 (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have revised the article using about 30 independent sources, removed concerning sources, and minimized the use of Church News sources. I have also expanded the History and Design sections, rewritten the article in a more narrative style, and addressed CLOP. Please let me know if there are any remaining issues. Happyrain2121 (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Heyallkatehere:, @Theleekycauldron:, @Heyallkatehere:, @Ilov3gam3z: I am sure you have gotten plenty of pings already for this discussion, but the article is now in a much different place. I would like to believe Happyrain2121 has put in the effort to get this article to meet GA criteria; the proseline issue is largely gone, and while the The San Diego California Temple is the 45th operating temple ... phrase still exists, I find it hard to figure out how you would state this in any other way (unless this fact, including that it is "operating", is determined wholly unneeded). Church- associated sources are also only used in a few cases now where the facts seem uncontroversial (e.g., when the church is closed and who the leaders were/are). Your thoughts on if this should still be delisted are appreciated -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I good-to-honestly feel it is perfect now (but I have a bit of a bias). Ilov3gam3z (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think it looks much better now – my only concern would be that now a huge proportion of the material hasn't been spot-checked? So I might still be in favor of sending this to GA anew. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've completed a substantial reworking of the sources. Would another editor be willing to do a brief spot check here? I've just added sourcing to the infobox and lead as well (in response to Heyallkatehere). Happyrain2121 (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'll spot check - give me a few minutes. If it holds up to a spot check, my concerns are fully abated. Heyallkatehere (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Issue 1.

  "Plans to construct the temple were announced by Gordon B. Hinckley, a counselor in the Church's First Presidency, on April 7, 1984, during general conference.[19]"

  Source doesn't mention Hinkley or that it was during general conference. Heyallkatehere (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Issue 2.

  Approximately 720,000 visitors toured the temple during the open house.[21]

  Source doesn't say that, and is a repeat of previous sentence's source. Given that this was a source published before open house concluded, I presume this was a copy paste error, but still needs fixing. Heyallkatehere (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Issue 3.

  "The temple is a Gothic-inspired structure"

  This one's minor, but the local fox station as well as what that station links to never describes it as such. Heyallkatehere (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Issue 4.

  "The temple contains approximately 59,000 square feet (5481 m²) of interior space and is recognized as a prominent landmark along Interstate 5.[28]"

  First half is sourced, second half is better suited by the local fox source. Easily fixed, but could use fixing. Heyallkatehere (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Issue 5.

  Another simple one.

  "With renovation completed, a public open house is scheduled from June 18 to July 11, 2026, followed by a rededication on August 23, 2026.[30]"

  Source doesn't specify that it's the 23rd, just that it's august. Easy fix, still worth pointing out. Heyallkatehere (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Issue 6.

  Sources say that both Hinckley and Monson presided over the dedication, the body only mentions Hinckley, and the infobox only mentions Monson. Both should probably list both. Heyallkatehere (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Issue 7.

  The work included cleaning the exterior surfaces, repairing the roof and towers, recaulking seams in the white aggregate-stone and stucco finish, and applying a protective sealant.

  That's some very close paraphrasing, I'd like to see that reworded. Heyallkatehere (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Alright - That's all I got. Other than those 7 nitpicks, looks great. Heyallkatehere (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the spot check, Heyallkatehere. I'll resolve those asap. Happyrain2121 (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Issue 1: solved with an independent source and the original announcement (general conference repository) from the church website. Updated the infobox - temple was announced by Hinckley rather than Kimball.

  Issue 2: updated source with a newer one published after the temple open house.

  Issue 3: added a source that talked about the gothic design of the temple towers.

  Issue 4: added two local sources to support the second half of the sentence "is recognized as a prominent landmark along Interstate 5"

  Issue 5: updated a source that gives the specific date of temple rededication.

  Issue 6: updated lead and infobox - both Hinckley and Monson dedicated the temple.

  Issue 7: addressed CLOP, summarized renovation activities, changed description to "The work included repairs to the roof, towers, and other exterior features, along with cleaning and preservation work to protect the structure from weathering."

  Thanks again, Heyallkatehere. Does anyone have any other concerns? Happyrain2121 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  If Heyallkatehere is good with the results of the spotcheck, I'm a keep. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  My concerns are fully abated - I'm a solid keep

  Fantastic job. 🦊Heyallkatehere (Enter the foxden?) 23:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'd like to see some sourcing on the infobox and lead, but other than that I'd be rather happy to see this sent back to GA Heyallkatehere (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Are we all set to close this as a keep, @Zzz plant? 🦊Heyallkatehere (Enter the foxden?) 05:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yep, keep, my concerns have been resolved. Zzz plant (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Theleekycauldron: As you started the nomination, and all here seem to be agreed, if you have no further complaints with the article, could you please close as keep? Thank you. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)