Talk:Convent of La Concepción, Mexico City

Catholicism Low‑importance

Convent of La Concepción, Mexico City is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Architecture Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article assessment (January 2025)

Result: C-class
After reviewing this article (which was rather brief), I've concluded that this article ranks as C-class on the content assessment scale. I have checked this article against the B-class, and subsequently C-class criteria before picking my assessment. See below.

Assessment table

B-class criteria

:B-class review

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

It is suitably referenced, with in-line citation:
Very much in need of more citations; at risk of being AFDed
It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious holes:
New sources may bring to light new information
It has a defined structure:
It is reasonably well-written:
Generally well-written for a short entry.
It contains supporting materials where appropriate:
Considering how short it is, it really only needs the infobox image.
It presents its content in an appropriately understandable way:
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Onto C-class criteria

C-class criteria
C-class review More than one reliable source: Y Both book sources seem generally reliable, checked WorldCat Better developed in style: Y Reasonably well-written Reasonably encyclopedic style: Y See below.

Overall, I still think this article needs significant work in order to properly fufill Wikipedia's content policies. More specifically: including more sources to 1. establish notability and 2. suitably reference the article in accordance with the verifiability policy. Good news is, the article seems to not suffer problems with neutral point of view or stylistic issues, and largely complies with the Manual of Style. If you want further input on how to improve the article, please message me on my talk page. Good luck on the article! —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 06:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]