Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanford Memorial Church/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 00:39, 5 August 2009 [1].

Stanford Memorial Church[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now fulfills all the criteria for an FA. With lots of help, including from MemChu's organist, I also believe that all the issues/concerns from this article's previous FAC have been addressed. The close paraphrasing problem is now solved, thanks to Awadewit, who has approved moving forward with this FAC. The images are much improved. The "gaps in content" (architecture, earthquakes, staff) are now closed, thanks to the research assistance of Erp. Even Scartol contributed, by creating the article's attractive tables. There's even a video of the above-mentioned Robert Huw Morgan playing one of the church's organs. The improvement of this article has been a real labor of love for all of us involved. I believe that the article is as pretty as the church is, and deserving of that silver star. --Christine (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, as Scartol knows, I su--I'm really bad at tables and coding and such. Makes it looks much better, I think. Doncha love the collaborative nature of the project! --Christine (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tables (formerly galleries) now have alt text, but this still needs work. For example, File:Memchu hopedetail.jpg's alt text is "hope detail", which says almost nothing about appearance: it should be something like "Pointed bottom of a colorful mosaic labeled "HOPE" whose margin has a head with flowering ivy. The mosaic is in a spandrel framed by stonework featuring the head of a woman." (or something like that: someone expert in architecture could no doubt do a better job). Also, the images that were not in galleries all need alt text. For example, the image in the lead infobox needs alt text; please see Template:Infobox religious building/testcases for a suggestion for that one. Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completed. Sorry, I wasn't sure what you meant, since this is the only time I've seen something like this requested during an FAC. I don't understand, though, why you would request something that my browser doesn't even show. Ah, well, I obey. --Christine (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not for your browser; it's for the browsers of visually impaired readers who cannot see the images (see WP:ACCESSIBILITY). Please try to pretend that you're someone new to the topic who is briefly explaining what you see to someone over the telephone. Don't interpret the image or explain where it came from (that's for the caption, or the main text).
  • The current alt text still needs some work, I'm afraid. For example, for Image:Memorialchurch1903.jpg the alt text is currently "Stanford Memorial Church, as it appeared prior to the 1906 earthquake. Notice the clock tower, which was never replaced." Almost none of this alt text describes visual appearance: only "church" and "clock tower" do that. The alt text should be reworded to describe the visual appearance only. For example, "Facade of church, in front of a clock tower that is another story higher than the facade".
  • For more about this sort of thing, please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Please review and revise the other alt text examples in the light of those WP:ALT sections. Thanks.
Eubulides (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooohh! Ding--the light bulb goes on. It's an accessibility thing. As we used to say in grad school, the ADA rules!! Sorry, and thanks for the explanation. Hope my improvements are adequate. If not, could someone else improve on my attempts? --Christine (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my explanation was so bad. It's not an ADA thing, it's a W3C thing, but you've got the basic idea right. Thanks for working on it. I tweaked the alt text you added to try to conform a bit better to WP:ALT #What not to specify. However, two images (marked "alt=??") are still lacking alt text; could you please fill those in? (One of them has two captions but no alt text; I expect that one of the captions was intended to be the alt text, but can't tell which one, which is a sign that the alt text needs work.) Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There, now I've got it. Thanks for catching the ones I missed. Done, I think. --Christine (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and thanks for doing that. Eubulides (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. --Christine (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I copyedited this article several months ago, and I'm impressed by all the additional research and work that has been poured into it. I wish we could eliminate the horizontal scroll bar, but those images of the stained-glass windows are just too lovely to shrink. Assuming the alt-text specifics are worked out, I see no reason why this shouldn't be certified as an FA. Well-written, exhaustively researched, and lovingly polished. Kudos to all involved! Scartol • Tok 15:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't support this yet. There were umpteen errors screaming out for correction.
  • Real solid mistakes about the events of the 1906 earthquake and the process by which the building became damaged. Half a dozen mis-statements in that category at least. I believe I have fixed them.
  • Twice the present facade was described as having a "quatrefoil" window. It doesn't. That was removed in the 1913 rebuilding.
  • The alt descriptions, which had been laboured over (I know that) simply hadn't had enough looking to get them really right. The figure of God (or possibly Moses) was described as an "angel". The figure of an angel (Cherubim if you like) was called "head of a woman". chancel windows were called "clerestory" windows. They are not.
  • A great deal of the information that was present was badly organised. If you are starting on the personnel, stick to it. Don't suddenly shove in the dimensions of the building. They don't belong there.
  • Things that were placed in order were often not in an order that was logical ie size, importance, chronology.
  • The word "edifice" was used without understanding.

...... I have given the article a bit of an overhaul, but I'm sure it still needs correction.

  • Formatting. Placing picture side by side is effective if they are the same size exactly. If you do this with pics of different shapes and sizes, it looks ghastly. It is better to just have a small gallery and be done with it. Layout is important to the general effect of your article.
  • Can I suggest that you reread the article very carefully, because I can be certain sure that I will inadvertently have introduce typos, gaps, things you don't like and perhaps an error or two along the way. I'm a very sloppy typist for a start, and I use British spelling that you might want to fix.
  • If I cvan help with architectural concepts/terminlogy, drop me a message. Amandajm (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amanda, thanks for your input. I've noticed your edits and the above comments, but haven't been able to address them because I've been swamped with actual real-life work (for which I'm actually getting paid) and family obligations. It's my hope that I'll get to it before the weekend. Thanks for your patience. --Christine (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I started looking at some of the newer edits to this article, and although I'm only at the start of my review, I already have a question. When I re-submitted this article for FAC, every statement made in it could be backed up by reliable sources, which parallels my understanding of what an FA should be. It was obvious, though, that this article's main editor (that would be me) has never viewed or set foot in the church, so many of the descriptions of its appearance and architecture were lacking. I depended upon the descriptions of others, most notably Robert C. Gregg in his book, Glory of Angels. Gregg's book was invaluable in the final improvement of this article in preparation for this FAC. Amandajm's additions, however, have obviously been written by someone who knows the church. So here's my question: does a description of a physical object that's the subject of a WP article by a viewer constitute OR? One of the examples of similar FAs provided during this article's last FAC, St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery, seems to do the same thing, although not as extensively. If it's not OR, then much of Amandajm's edits can stand; if not, we're gonna have to restructure them. --Christine (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please fix the citation errors. On a very quick runthrough, I spotted copyedit and MOS needs. I left some inlines, and suggest a tighter copyedit is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning descriptions. Your average person can look at a Notre Dame de Paris (for example) and say "The cathedral has three doors, two towers, a rose window in the middle and rows of statuary". Someone with a knowledge of medieval architecture will describe the style of the rose window as "Rayonnant" and refer to the statues as being in a "gallery".
This description:
The facade faces the Inner Quad, and is connected to other buildings by arcades which extend laterally. The entry is through a narthex or porch extending across the building. The nave has a single aisle on either side, separated by an arcade with a clerestory above it. The crossing is formed by a structure of square plan which once supported the central tower. Over it is a shallow dome supported on pendentives and rising to a skylight. Arches separate the central structure from the nave, transepts and chancel. The chancel and transepts are apsidal. There are galleries in the transepts and an organ gallery above the narthex in the nave. The sanctuary in the chancel is raised on steps.
...is based on primary sources (ie photographs of the building), with the exception of the first two facts which were already written into the article. This is all very simple stuff.
There is cited reference to the style of architecture of Stanford having been inspired by the Piazza of St Marco. This, of course, (and most significantly,) includes the facade of St Mark's Basilica. It is St Mark's that is reflected in this church, not in its shape, but in its mosaics and stone carving. Although mainly dating from the Romanesque period, St Marks stone carvings and mosaics, as well as the mosaics and large panel paintings by late medieval artists such as Cimabue, Duccio, and others, are generally referred to as Italian Byzantine in style. In other words, the 'known source' of the decoration at Stanford is described as Italian Byzantine, therefore the style of decoration at the MemChu is also Byzantine.
However, a cited source describing the decoration as Byzantine would be a good thing to have. I'll look through the online sources to see if and where the word has been used.
The other stuff is not OR. I just happen to know the correct terminology for what I'm looking at. If I made a claim like '"the style of the mosaics resembles that of the Sacristy of Westminster Cathedral", then I would be saying something so specific that it would definitely be Personal Research, unless referenced to another source.
...and no, I've never been there.
Amandajm (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amandajm, you are introducing unformatted citations;[2] articles cannot pass FAC without correctly formatted citations (see WP:WIAFA), so please assure that your edits conform with the criteria. If you are uncertain of how to do so, it may be wise to discuss edits on talk first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unformatted citations are the least of the problems. Anyone who knows how to format them can fix them. Having a citation in place, is better than no citation at all. Sandy, if you know how to format citations, why not just do it, while I get on with the research? Why bother leaving a messages that takes longer to write than correcting the problem? The links are there. Go for it!
  • The PR problem. I found sources referring to the Byzantine nature of the decoration. I also took a careful look and juggled some of the wording, in order that what was stated complied with the available sources.
There was one addition of mine which was decidely PR. It concerned the chancel being similar to those of the churches of Ravenna. I deleted this. Everything else is a straightforward statement of what is clearly visible. It is not interpretive in any way.
  • There is a quotation about the glass of the large facacde window which says something like "there is facetted glass set in like glass". It sems to be a mistake. Could the writer check this quotation and see what it really says?.
Amandajm (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the error; the correct word is "gems"--inset like gems". Thanks for the catch. --Christine (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the article of St Michael's Golden Domed Monastry, that you mmentioned about. There is a paragraph which describes a previous (partly speculated) state of the building. There is only one citation, but I would believe that the entire description came from the same cited source.
Other than that, there is quite a lot of historic and interpretative material in that article that has no given source. To make an unsourced statement that "the design is based on that of the Church of So-on at Somewhere" is not the same as looking at the building and saying "it has four domes clustered around a larger central dome. They are onion-shaped and gilded."
The article also has a stupid contradiction at the beginning of the history. It presumes that the reader thinks/knows somethinmg, and tells the reader it isn't true, without the reader having a clue! I'll leave them a message. It really isn't FA stuff! I don't know how it got there.
Amandajm (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the dates. That article has been an FA for 3 years. Standars have gone up since 2006. Amandajm (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shall be supporting this, when I have finished digesting it becasue it s very good. However, I keep thinking in certain sections that I have read this before, but I suppose when history and architecture are rightly seperated that is going to happen. This phrase "the Rev. Scotty McLennan, has stated that although she "built an unambiguously Christian church, with Jesus' outstretched arms of love at the very pinnacle of the mosaic facade outside, and Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection gloriously portrayed in 19 large stained-glass windows, ... there were rabbis and priests and imams speaking [at the church] right from the..." I lost interest in what the boring man was saying and never reached the end of the quote; let's leave things like "Jesus' outstretched arms" out of an encyclopedic page, no matter who said it. Giano (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, G. I figured the easiest thing to do was to just delete the thing. Which, as a "touchy-feely" type, was really hard for me to do! ;) --Christine (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Amandajm: In the Plan section, you wrote the following: "There are deep galleries with swept balustraded fronts..." I'm assuming there are typos here. I changed it to my best guess: "with swept balustraded". Could you make sure this is correct? Also, should "baulustraded" be wikilinked, since (I'm assuming) it's an architectural term? --Christine (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "swept" that means curves rising or falling in Baroque terms; if you look here [3] they are concave or convex (I can never remember which is which). Giano (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response "Swept balususutradeded fronts" is not my doing. However, they do appear to be balustraded. And they are concave.Amandajm (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, someone who knows what they're doing needs to change this, please. I've never said that that person was me, so I appreciate those of you who have filled in my deficiencies. --Christine (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am now fully tuned to the page, it is very long - too long; I think the Rev Scotty needs only a mention, all that about his books and so forth can be shunted off to a page of his own, that and all the other priest/Chaplains stuff is making the page to clumbersome. If they all have pages of their own, all that need to be said is when they were incumbant. Why not start a page Priests of Mem Chu or whatever?Giano (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: The prose size of this article is 42kb, which is a pretty average length. Scartol • Tok 00:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but the page drags a little there, as some of these people already have their own pages, is it necessary to have so much about them there? Those 2 sections could be realy tightened - it does seem heavy reading and is not really strictly about the church. Giano (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, G. I've been pondering about it, though, and I vote to keep the section in. It's there because sometime in this long process, someone recommended that the article have a "Staff" section because they felt that there needed to be something about MemChu's current ministry. The church and its business is still a vital part of the university, through its staff, and its article should reflect that. I'm sorry you find it so boring! ;) --Christine (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, keep a staff section, perhaps grinning priests just make me nevous, but this whole paragraph "McLennan, who is a Unitarian Universalist minister, was an activist neighborhood lawyer"[49] in Boston before becoming a university chaplain, first at Tufts University.[49] At Stanford, McLennan has taught courses in ethics and business. He is author of the books Finding Your Religion: When the Faith You Grew Up With Has Lost Its Meaning and Jesus Was a Liberal: Reclaiming Christianity for All and co-authored Church on Sunday, Work on Monday: The Challenge of Fusing Christian Values With Business Life.[50] Garry Trudeau, who was McLennan's roommate when they were students at Yale University, based his Doonesbury character, the Rev. Scot Sloan, in part on McLennan.[49]" Has nothing to do with the subject watsoever, and needs to be shunted to his pwn page - It almost sounds as though you are plugging his books (I'm sure with catchy titles like that, he will hit the 100 best sellers, without your help) What I'm trying to say is, it is dull and of no interest to anybody disinclined to click the link about the man. Just introduce him as an author and old student and let the blue link do the rest. The same with the rest of them, keep it short and punchy. Giano (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're too funny. Grinning priests make you nervous. Your humor and good graces have changed my mind, kind sir. I deleted most of the above, but kept the activist lawyer bit and the Doonesbury connection. Should I make similar deletions for the rest of the staff? --Christine (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No that will do, if that's how you want it - it's much improved and so much easier to read- it will need updating from time to time though. Lemme have a last flick through and I'll support. Giano (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just spotted this which may need calrifying: "Members of the university community use the sanctuary for "quiet, for reflection, and for private devotions" - do they actually use the sanctuary? The "unordained" in the sanctuary, isn't that unusual? Shouldn't they stay chancel-side on the sanctuary steps? Giano (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The sanctuary is not used. --Erp (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Giano (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as I am about to support, I see someone has made this edit [4], I won't revert in case the editor in question is a principal editor of this page, but it looks dreadful, the MOS does not demand that all images (especialy on those concerning arts and architecture) have unspecified sizes. The small images look silly and spoil the pages appearance and no longer assist the text in an illlustrative manner - which is the point of them. MOS rules are not blanket enforcable.Could Sandy or Roaul confirm this's it's one of those thigs that seems to confuse people.Giano (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you tell me to, I will revert. I'm not afraid to do so. --Christine (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too late, me and Her from Oz have already done it! Giano (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone who knows the place re-write this for clarity "Behind the communion table, in the church's apse, contains a raised floor originally used for commencement ceremonies, as well as a mosaic reproduction of Roselli's "Last Supper",..." and whilsy doing it lose the "as well as". Sorry to keep nit-picking - the sun is beaming through the new oculi at its looking pretty good. Giano (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, sweetie, it's all right. Aren't you supposed to be picky? ;) At any rate, I changed it to: Behind the communion table, in the church's apse, is a raised floor, originally used for commencement ceremonies, and a mosaic reproduction of Roselli's "Last Supper". Golden mosaic niches have been placed at the right of the communion table. Does that work for ya? --Christine (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Raised floor", "ceremonial purpose"......that's a dais isn't it? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understood it to mean mezanine - so it needs to be clarified. Giano (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - looking at these File:Memchu altar pulpit.jpg File:Memchu wedding.jpg, I'd say it wasn't a mezzanine. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "to the right....." who's right - clergy or leity? Better east - west etc. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are actually two raised levels in the chancel. The first starts with a semi-circular stair, on the east side is the pulpit and on the west side the lectern (both are just visible in the picture linked above). Further south is the straight altar rail and stair to the second level, the sanctuary, where the marble altar and behind that the Last Supper mosaic are. I have never actually seen the altar used in a service, generally a communion table is set on the first raised level, if the service includes communion, and that is also where most performances I've seen are. --Erp (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it does! SUPPORT. Giano (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Position of Communion table. Don't use this as a reference point at all. The chancel is the chancel. It architecturally part of the building. That is the reference point. So we say that the floor of the chancel is raised by three steps. (it is almost alweays three, but the number can be verified by looking at the plan.) As for the raised bits under the pulpit and lectern, it is so nnormal and unremarkable as to hardly require description.
For the record the chancel floor is raised by 7 steps in MemChu. The back half behind the altar rail is raised another 2 steps. --Erp (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just seen (per this edit [5]) this plan File:Memchu.svg, it needs to be incorporated and used as a reference, why has it not been? I am all for this being a FA,but I can see no excuse for this not being 'very used - is there a reason? Giano (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was an argument about possible copyright problems. See end of first FAC archive discussion, I think it is possible ok but I think we need the experts' opinions --Erp (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, funnily enough I know someone who is very good at drawing plans - I beleive I noticed him "supporting" somwehere below me a moment ago. Giano (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - might take me a few days - till Monday say if Sandy/Raul etc. can keep this open until then. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be so marvy if you did that. I've been giving virtual kisses during this FAC; JC, if you drew a plan, you'd get one, too. As far as keeping the nom open 'til Monday, that's something that gives me pause, since it means more time for more hands, which will make things more complicated. Is there any way this article can pass with this pending? I mean, will not having a plan prevent it from passing before Monday? And regarding the support below, I'm changing my nickname of this article to "'my' pretty little article" to "'my' lovely little article. ;) --Christine (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely more hands (and eyes) are to be welcomed? Anyway - it might not take me that long......--Joopercoopers (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support lovely article by the way, despite the infobox. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Holding, pending plan. Also, the section regarding retrofitting..... First sentence says the building was extensively retrofitted. Then second sentence says the building was rebuilt. You can't really do both as a 'retrofit' rather implies there's something there upon which to 'fit'. I'd just say the building was rebuilt with the new measures to guard against future earthquake damage. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a major reconciliation of the "interior". Hope it meets with approval. Amandajm (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the 'retrofitting' problem meself, plan on the way in 1hr. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criterion 3 - Hopefully these can be fixed quickly.
  • File:Memorialchurch.jpg - The license for this image is CC-by-SA 2.5, but the website does not indicate that license. Perhaps I missed it?
I have sent an email to the photographer to release the correct license. --Christine (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case he decides not to (he's a professional photographer and might be reluctant to do so), you might want to think about other image could be used there. Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue, since I just received an email from the photographer releasing the license. Could someone please direct me what to do next? Do we go through OTRS, like with the Morgan file? --Christine (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, OTRS is the way to go. Awadewit (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request at OTRS has been made. --Christine (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Robert Huw Morgan Bach FugueG.ogg - OTRS permission is not yet sufficient. Note the tag: "An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read as ticket 2009062010003299 by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file.
Dr. Morgan released the correct permission, but the OTRS guy didn't make the change to reflect this. I've resent a reminder requesting that the change be made. --Christine (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the change has been made, so this concern is addressed. --Christine (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Memchu mosaics.jpg - We need to add information to the image description explaining why the mosaics are in the PD.
Please forgive my denseness, but I'm not certain how to address this. Could someone else take care of this?
File:Exterior mosaic2.jpg - Here is an example. Awadewit (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, gotcha. Done. --Christine (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to check, were the interior mosaics made by the same people at exactly the same time as the exterior mosaics? (I see you have copied the info from the image I linked above, so I am assuming that is the case.) Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were indeed made by the same people and at the same time. The exterior mosaics had a couple of reworks in the 1910's as the initial setup due to window style change and removal of the dedication to a side panel after the earthquake didn't satisfy the Board of Trustees. The interior ones didn't have much done beyond repair work. I need to reread the article myself to make sure there is nothing I know is wrong.--Erp (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Christine (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading article now. Awadewit (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support - As Christine mentioned, I worked a bit on this article, but its transformation since I last saw it is wonderful. The additional detail about the architecture is excellent. In my opinion, it is well-sourced, comprehensive, and well-written. I will fully support as soon as the image issues are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for fixing my typos etc. There are still quite a few red links to various people. Do we need a few more stubs on them, or are they not yet suuficiently notable for Wiki articles? Can someone decide? They look messy at present! Amandajm (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I just read and jiggered with the organs.... My goodness that Organ Morgan (see Under Milk Wood) has an overabundance of enthusiasm! Just a couple of good quotes was enough! Amandajm (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Huw Morgan is an enthusiast (and a native Welshman). I gather on the gossip line that he is hoping for a fifth organ for the church soon.--Erp (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A=Altar, B=Chancel, C=Crossing, D=Nave, E=Aisles, F=Vestibule, G=Arcade, H=East Transept with Transept Gallery above, J=West Transept/Side Chapel with Transept Gallery above, K=Round Room

Plan completed - please let me know if any additions or alterations are required. I'll place it in the article somewhere appropriate. I've had to infer the locations and swings of some of the doors, and I had insufficient information to include the window penetrations, but this should be sufficient for our purposes. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jooper! It's boo-tifoo! ;) --Christine (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of windows, it would probably be a bit cluttered. One thing is that the aisles (E) might imply there is no center aisle (the wording in the paragraph also implies this). I have the feeling another word is needed instead of 'aisle'. I think the swing of the side doors under the stairs are going the wrong way.--Erp (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People being "walked up the aisle" is a popular misconception - you're walked up the nave .....that's not just a aphorism for the honeymoon. (the centre aisle is really the bit between the columns with the high roof = the nave) The aisles are definitely the walkways to the left and right of the nave, usually under the lower roof. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - is the infobox absolutely essential? --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Oh what a lovely beautiful plan! As for the info box.... I hate them! But because the TOC is rather long, the info box just sits there and doesn't disrupt the text and pictures below it, even on a wide shallow screen. So in this instance I'm prepared to leave it there to keep the lovers of info-boxes happy. I must say that I would love to visit this church and hear the Romantic "Rolls Royce" organ and the Maserati organ and the Continuo Organ and t'other organ! Wow! And how great those stained glass windows look! Now that I know how to line them all up like that, I have already used that formatting elsewhere. Amandajm (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Architectural type: Church" <rolls eyes>, this doesn't even make sense. Building type might, but given the name of the article includes 'church', there's absolutely no value in it whatsoever that I can see. The geographic location is repeated just a few lines down from the usual coordinates in the top right. Romanesque, Byzantine, pre-Raphaelite styles are listed, but does that really express the 'hybrid' nature alluded to in the article. Usual problems with infoboxes, which usually work well with subject with established taxonomies such as mushrooms, plants, subatomic particles etc. really not adding anything of value to arts articles. I'm tempted towards a bold removal, sorry Christine.......reaching for the edit button.........gonna....have......to.....loose.....it.......--Joopercoopers (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add, I'm likely in a minority view here, so please revert if you feel appropriate, my support is not contingent on the removal of the box. I just think the lead is better illustrated with an exterior and interior view, rather than an arbitrary collection of random facts of dubious use and value. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind you removing the infobox, really. I lean towards your viewpoint about 'em. I figure if an article is lovelier without it, it's gone. Lovely articles may not be a WP policy, but it's one of mine. When Sesame Street gets closer to FA, I'll be fighting against its infobox, since it uglifies the thing. I think that losing the infobox in this article makes its lovelier, but I wish we had another image for the second one, one that shows a view of the nave, since we've already got a wedding image later on. I'm busy today, so Jooper, if you want to take care of that, and as long as it doesn't affect the FAC process, knock yerself out. --Christine (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True but the wedding is incidental really to the image of the interior architecture. I'll have a look in cold storage though.....--Joopercoopers (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and kind of matches the colours of the first image which is nice. Will somebody double check the licensing, I think I've got it right....but.....--Joopercoopers (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Stanford_Memorial_Church/archive2&oldid=1078806987"