Talk:San Diego California Temple

San Diego California Temple is currently an Art and architecture good article nominee. Nominated by Happyrain2121 (talk) at 18:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review this article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor. When complete, this review will be closed by the reviewer. To view the review and add comments, click discuss review.

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.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal 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.

California: Southern California Low‑importance

	California portal 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.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force.

San Diego Low‑importance

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:

Assess : Rate San Diego related articles from Category:Unassessed San Diego articles and Category:Unknown-importance San Diego articles with the {{WikiProject San Diego}} project banner.
Cleanup : A cleanup listing for this project is available: clean-up listing for San_Diego
Expand : San Miguel Mountain, Most articles from Category:Stub-Class San Diego articles.
Photo : Request photos that are needed from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in San Diego County, California to include in each article.
Stubs : Work on articles in Category:San Diego County, California, geography stubs.
Other : * Add {{WikiProject San Diego}} project banner to related articles' talk pages and assess.
- Maintain and further improve articles already of high-quality.
- Get San Diego into Featured article status.
- Improve groups of articles to meet the standards for a Good or Featured Topic.

Transwiki

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

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

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

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

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:

" 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]

A few problems that need to be fixed.

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]