Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Talk:San Diego California Temple

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
  • Happyrain2121 (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Member of LDS church, has disclosed in the GA reassessment review.)

The good article status of this article is being reassessed to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page .

Date: 06:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the San Diego California Temple article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Good articles San Diego California Temple 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.
Review : June 7, 2026. (Reviewed version ).
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject icon Christianity Low‐importance
WikiProject icon 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
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon Latter Day Saint movement Low‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement 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.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon California : Southern California Low‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Southern California task force .
WikiProject icon San Diego Low‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to San Diego and San Diego County 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.San DiegoWikipedia:WikiProject San DiegoTemplate:WikiProject San DiegoSan Diego
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject San Diego To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Transwiki

[edit ]

Can someone transwiki the images currently found in the "Additional images" section of this article. -- 159.182.1.4 01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

Presidents being notable

[edit ]

I believe a list of presidents is certainly notable, besudes the fact that not EVERYTHINg in wiki has to be very notable to be included. As stated though, I believe it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.157.85 (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

Check out this link for what's "notable" according to established Wikipedia standards. – jaksmata 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

GA review

[edit ]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:San Diego California Temple/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Happyrain2121 (talk · contribs) 18:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Reviewer: Ilov3gam3z (talk · contribs) 11:40, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Nominator info

[edit ]

The nominator of this article has adhered to the GA instructions. A brief look through the edit history of this article shows major contributions from the nominator to make this article better. This article before the nominee's changes looked like a stub/start class article, and now it looks like a B or C. Great job to the nominator for their contribs.

Review

[edit ]

This article adheres to the MOS and Wikipedia policy, is detailed (but not too detailed to mention non-notable things about the building) and in general has no problems. It passes Earwig's copyvio detector and I can find no content in the article that would warrant a quick-fail. There are a few times in this article where it says things like someone was the 'first councilor in the first presidency' without attributing these titles to the Mormon church, but I digress, this really does not matter to the reader. I may edit these myself to fix a couple problems. Overall, this article presents an encyclopedic, neutral, comprehensive and notable article on it's subject matter. I pass this article, but will wait until a more experienced reviewer can review my review and see if it is adequate. I am reviewing this article as part of the June 2026 backlog drive and I am a newbie reviewer, which is why I need someone to review my review.

PS As the reviewer helping me has stated in the below reply, and I have discovered, it seems that a few of the sources in the article have been mixed up. I am fixing the most egregious ones but I believe the nominee reading this should check if the specific sources in each sentence actually correlate to the content of each sentence. It seems all the sources needed are in the article, though, just mixed around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilov3gam3z (talk • contribs) 11:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'll provide my input here as well. Ilov3gam3z, good work; you've indicated that this article adheres to the GA criteria 1a, 1b, 2a, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4, and 5. You can also point out that 6a is met, since all of the images used are appropriately licensed. I would question if this article meets 6b, since image galleries under a heading "Gallery" with no other context are largely discouraged unless there is context that warrants multiple images of the same subject - in my view there is very little to differentiate the first three images, though the details and alternate views are nice. These latter two images could be placed elsewhere in the article.
Lastly—this is a big point, though—there's little indication that you've checked that the references used in this article verify the text they are supporting based on the location of footnotes. Reviewers will usually do this by writing, for example: "Reference 7c doesn't mention the San Diego Press Club at all, nor the 'Headliner of the Year' award" or "[19]a: checkY" if there are no issues found. I've already found one problem (see above) so I'd like you to take a look at the references and make sure this article meets criteria 2b and 2c. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Doing so now. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Aha! Found the problem. Source 17 proves the award was given to the temple, I will simply add the citation for the already existing source where it should be. It seems as if some of the citations have been mixed around a bit. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
@Reconrabbit: The nominator has fixed all the problems with the article, could you please review my review and pass this nomination. Thanks. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

A few problems that need to be fixed.

[edit ]

I added that small PS section to the review but after further examination, I do not feel like that small section does the problem found justice. Nominator Happyrain2121 : some of the claims in the article you have nominated are unsubstantiated by the sources listed as inline citations. Also, the section on the temple's renovations is not updated as the renovations have already happened. I have added citation needed and update needed inline where the most egregious problems are, but there are probably some more claims that need citations to be put in the correct area/sources to be found to verify them. The biggest problem I can find is the so-called Silver Anvil Award that the temple received. No sources in this article show that it received this award. If these issues are fixed, this article from my examination will be GA material. The article's content is fine though, other then a slight excess of gallery photos, but that is a bit more subjective. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

For now, your nomination is on hold as these problems have not been addressed. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Reviewer Ilov3gam3z , thank you for taking the time to review the article. I appreciate your input and will start looking at the revisions today. Happyrain2121 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Thank you for your help too, Reconrabbit. Happyrain2121 (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
I have addressed all of the recommended changes, including correcting the source mismatches, adding additional citations to support claims (such as the Silver Anvil Award), removing the gallery section, and incorporating the final two images into the article body. I also made some minor revisions to the renovations section for clarity. While the information regarding the open house and rededication is prospective, it is not outdated, as both events are scheduled to occur in June–August 2026.
Let me know if there are any remaining concerns or additional changes that should be made. Happyrain2121 (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Seems good. I will ping the experienced reviewer to sign off on a pass. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Good work to all here. I believe the article meets the GA criteria with your efforts. Passed. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment

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

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]
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) [reply ]
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) [reply ]
  • 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年03月03日). "New Mormon temple". The San Bernardino County Sun . pp. A1 A2 . Retrieved 2026年06月08日 – via Newspapers.com. (2) Frank, Jeff (1993年02月19日). "New Mormon temple a treat for the eyes". Daily Times-Advocate . pp. B1 B8 . Retrieved 2026年06月08日 – 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) [reply ]
    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) [reply ]
    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) [reply ]
    Also, I am adding connected contributor to the article for full disclosure. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
    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) [reply ]
    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) [reply ]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /