This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 15:43, December 22, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
Egami Church 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
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
Egami Church (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 22 February 2022 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
For an article on a World Heritage Site claimed to be "one of the finest wooden churches in Japan", this article is disappointingly short, only four paragraphs. The history section makes a sudden jump from its completion in 1918 to its repainting in 2001, with nothing in between. Much of the content is sourced to tourism-promotion web sites, rather than scholarly sources (which do exist; see [1], [2], [3], for examples). I think this is a quick fail, unfortunately; the content it has appears largely ok, and I think it's a high-quality start-class article on its topic, but it's very far from meeting WP:GACR #3 (broad-enough coverage of its topic) and also farther than it should be from #2b (citations are from reliable sources). I think this would need such significant expansion to be ready for GA that it would essentially be a new article, and that providing a full review for it in its present state (beyond the need for expansion and to put more effort into seeking high-quality sources) would not be helpful.
