Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes

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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:55, 25 August 2008 [1].

---

Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes

Nominator(s): Jayjg ^(talk)

The article is a copiously referenced and complete description of a 152 year old Brooklyn congregation. I'm not aware of any FAs for similar kinds of organizations. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• opposed. The prose isn't what one would call engaging or brilliant, as the FA states. While it is fairly well written, I dont feel that its up to FA standard. Some sentences are difficult to understand and can easily be reworded. A quick example of such was found in the lead:

"The famous composer Aaron Copland celebrated his Bar mitzvah there in 1913,[13] and long-time Goldman Sachs head Sidney Weinberg was married there in 1920.[14][15]"

I think it is more engaging to say that the Synagogue was host (or simply just hosted) the bar mitzvah of famous composer Aaron Copland, as well as bearing use for the wedding of Sidney Weinberg in 1920.

Of course thats just for a quick start, I'm sure much better can be done to improve this article's prose. As said, some sentences are difficult to read and completely understand. I would recommend you request a copy edit or peer review (if you havent already).

And something about that lead...doesnt tickle my fancy. The image squashes a lot of the lead text together while the lead is difficult to completely understand once again.

And if this doesnt apply to you, ignore the following statement but looking at the lead and the rest of the article, it seems unlikely that you followed the criteria in regards to a lead section. Ensure that the lead summarizes everything in the article and prepares the reader for further reading. Judging by what I read, the lead and some other sections are not engaging. Domiy (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. I'm not sure I could agree that "as well as bearing use for the wedding of Sidney Weinberg in 1920" is better and more clear prose than "and long-time Goldman Sachs head Sidney Weinberg was married there in 1920"; the former seems less informative, and grammatically unclear and awkward - it's not even idiomatic English, as far as I can tell. I'd be interested in what others think. Regarding the lede itself, is there anything specific in the article that you think it doesn't summarize but should? I'm open to suggestions. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - "Promotion of women" seems inappropriate title, as the section is broader in scope than just women being given offices in the synagogue hierarchy. Also, inconsistencies in transliterated terms: I noticed hazzan, chazan and hazan. And sometimes with and sometimes without italicisation. --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your helpful input. You're quite right about the title, it didn't describe the section contents well. I've changed it to "Increasing involvement of women"; what do you think? Regarding hazzan/chazan/hazan/, you're right, but I'm not sure how to get around it. The Wikipedia article is called hazzan, so that's what I've used in this article too. Because it's an unfamiliar non-English word, I've also italicized it. However, in two places the article quotes sources, and each of those sources spells the word differently (one "chazan", one "hazan"), and neither italicizes it. I didn't feel I could change text in a direct quote. Do you see a way to deal with this issue? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Title is better, yes. I'm no expert, but I believe that hazan/hazzan is more normally used in Sephardi texts, with Ashkenazi preferring chazan. As this is an Ashkenazi synagogue, I think, chazan would seem more appropriate, but I have two suggestions: 1) Go with whatever the synagogue itself uses, with "sic" comments if RS use another spelling 2) If the synagogue's website etc doesn't resolve the matter, drop a line at WP:RD/L. --Dweller (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the term hazzan with the English word "cantor", which should solve most of the problems and make for a more uniform terminology and italicization. I haven't actually modified the terms in direct quotes, but they're a minority, and it's clear from the context that they're direct quotes. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also included the word "cantor" in square brackets beside the two quoted uses of the term "Hazan/Chazan", which should make it very clear now. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Per the MOS, all capitals shouldn't be used, even when the titles of web pages are in all capitals.
• Link checker tool is showing a LOT of dead links, all from kanestreet.com. Probably would be good to double check them. (I didn't because I'm on the road on a less than ideal connection).

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked with the link checker tool. Note I'm on the road the rest of this week, so replies may be delayed somewhat. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Regarding your first point, I hadn't realized that: these were newspaper article titles, so I just copied them exactly. I've now modified them to be in mixed case. Regarding your second point, the synagogue's website appears to be down today. I'm sure the links will work again once the website comes back up. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just my luck! I've been working on this article for over two years, and the week I decide to finally put it up for FA status is the week Baith Israel decides to re-vamp its website. As of today, the website still has a bunch of broken links, which is why some of the links in the article don't work. I'll fix the ones I can fix, and keep a close eye on the website; as soon as the site is fixed, I'll update the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gone ahead and struck both, the caps thing is just one of those picky little pesky details that sometimes trips you up. I went ahead and struck on the website, since it sounds like you'll keep an eye on things. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Well-written and impeccably sourced. Some really excellent free photos too. I really don't understand the concerns about the prose expressed above; I can't find any major problems in the prose.

The article is organized as if it were History of Congregation Baith Israel, but the article is about the synagogue itself. Should material on the architecture or layout be organized together? Should the women's issues material be its own section? Or material on the current relationship between Baith Israel and other congregations? Compare Cathedral of Magdeburg and IG Farben Building, FAs on other buildings. They have long history sections, but the have non-history sections as well. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Regarding the article organization, that's a good point, and I'm glad you raised it. This is actually an article about the congregation, not the specific synagogue building they are in now - that's why it's called Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes, not Kane Street Synagogue, and why it lists the whole history of the organization back to 1855, rather than starting in 1905, when it purchased its current buildings. That's also why it doesn't discuss the previous tenants of its current buildings. Of course, buildings are an important part of synagogue history, which is why the article does discuss Baith Israel's various buildings, but a congregation is much more than just a building. Compare, for example, recent Good Articles I've written on similar topics (e.g. Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, Temple Sinai (Oakland)) which were classified under "Religious organizations" rather than "Architecture". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I said on another page recently that I think Jayjg's synagogue articles are very good, and how impressed I am with them. I think this one meets the FA criteria and that some of the others are very close. What a long way from AfD to FAC which this article has gone, but I think it is ready to be a featured article. dvdrw 00:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your supportive comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Well-sourced, well-structured and well-written article with exquisite illustrations. (Makes me (and probably others too) tempted to translate it into other languages to improve the quality of other language versions of Wikipedia...!) -- Olve Utne (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Those pictures are amazing, aren't they? I can't really take any credit though; I really wanted Hank to take them, because I'd seen the quality of his work, and he exceeded my expectations. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I've just read it through once now; there are various ways in which I'd tweak the prose but then I write differently. For the moment I limit myself to the section "Building renovations, attempts at amalgamation, traditionalism." The second paragraph states that "In April 1883, Baith Israel, Beth Elohim, and Temple Israel, Brooklyn's three leading synagogues, attempted an amalgamation." Unless this is a term of art I think it's clunky, and my impression from the preceding sections is that both Beth Elohim and Temple Israel split from Baith Israel. I think it would be worth re-iterating the shared institutional heritage (if I have it right). Mackensen (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Good points. I've re-written the text to make the latter clear and emphasize the shared institutional heritage, and I hope I've fixed the clunkiness of the wording. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note; I'm getting almost 40 dead sources with the external links checker; no sources check or image check, can someone check the source links pls ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Source check above. The links are all to the same website, the site of the congregation itself. It seems to be the site is being reorganized, and should be back up shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ack, sorry, Ealdgyth; I scanned for your cap and didn't see it. So the links have been dead for five days? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The way I understand, it's more that the website's being rearranged, and the authors are waiting for things to calm down before reworking all those links. Would suck to redo them then have everything change again and have to redo them again. They sound like they are on top of things, and now that you know, you can keep an eye on things. If they don't come back in the next week, then something else will have to be done, I'd think, but I'm willling to give it a bit of time. Ealdgyth - Talk 09:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten in touch with the synagogue staff, hoping to hear back soon. In the meanwhile I've also re-done the citations and references in a way that should cut the dead link problem in half for now, and make it easier to clean up once the website is fully functional again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, any news on the website as the weekend approaches? I'm still getting 13 deadlinks. Were any of those published in hardprint or do they represent web-exclusive content? If they were published off the 'net and others can access them by other means, and if you have access to those sources off the net, the weblinks could be considered as courtesy links only, meaning WP:V could be satisfied without them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've e-mailed four people associated with the synagogue now, and am hoping to hear back from at least one of them soon, but it might have to wait until after the weekend. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

O.K., I've been in touch with the synagogue president, and he has said that the web-master will fix this ASAP. In the interim, I've fixed all the links, sourcing them to the Internet Archive or Google or Yahoo caches. It should be possible to check them all for accuracy now, until the website is fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I'd caution other reviewers about is to watch that the synagogue site is only used for non-controversial claims. Also, the link checker tool is showing a couple of "media type htm/html is wrong for .xml files" errors. Not sure if .xml needs to be specified in the format of the refs or not. I'll leave that to the MOS mavens. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point regarding controversial claims. Of the 60 sources I used for the article, 5 are from the historical journal produced by the synagogue, and another 2 are from the website. I've tried to ensure that they're not used to back any controversial claims, but I welcome the views of others. Regarding the checker tool complaint, I noticed that too, but I'm not sure what has to be done to fix it, so I'm hopeful someone else does. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I worked on the trivial MoS fixes, but spacing and non-breaking spacess on the ellipses and punctuation on logical quotation need attention, and I'm not good at either of those. I recommend asking User:Epbr123 to run through and catch those two issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements and suggestions, Sandy; I've asked User:Epbr123 for help. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Olve Utne, dvdrw and Quadell (with Jay's clarification.) Well-written, well-sourced (but let's hope that web site comes back up soon!) and meets the FA criteria. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Excellent, excellent work. I haven't seen it for a while, the last time was when I was thinking of starting an article on Israel Goldfarb and discovered that most of the most useful information was already in this. But the pictures are excellent, the coverage comprehensive, and the style absorbing. Two small quibbles: the last sentence bothers me, somewhat, in that it repeats the crucial peg of the lead; and I really don't like the double negative "not uncontroversial" for the decision that led to the 1980s split. Naturally, other than that, I enthusiastically support. May I particularly compliment the excellent wikilinking, an underrated art. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your kind words. Regarding the double negative, good point, I've changed it to "not accepted by all congregants". Regarding the last sentence, I kind of liked the symmetry, and I think the lede should just re-iterate material in the body, not add new facts. Do you have suggestions for a replacement sentence? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No, no, I merely would perhaps have expected slightly different wording or something. If a stylistic preference, then I defer to you on it. Again, wonderful work. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support, with suggestions:
• I enjoyed reading the article, and made a few minor changes. I have a few suggestions:
• Try upright tags on the images. I'm not a fan of infoboxes, and the large image in the infobox at the top overwhelms the lead. I wouldn't oppose based on that, but the article aesthetics could be better.
• I'm woefully unaware of the details of the runnings of a synagogue. Therefore, some terms need clarification for the ignorant such as me to avoid WP:Jargon: what does tradition require of a cantor (because I'm thinking, if the guy can read the Torah how does that disqualify him to read the Torah?), you explained what good Talmud Torahs performed, but what are they?, gelila?, minyan?, blow the shofar, and whether daughters of kohanim could give the priestly blessing. (please don't make the gentiles cry because we have no idea what that means).
• Can the last sentence be adjoined to the paragraph above it? --Moni3 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and your improvements to the article. Regarding the unfamiliar jargon, I had provided links to the relevant Wikipedia articles or sections on them, but I've now also provided brief explanations in the article for the terms you have mentioned. Regarding the last sentence, it is really a different thought than the previous paragraph, so I'm reluctant to join them, though I'd appreciate the views of others. Regarding the images, I've tried adding upright tags, I wasn't aware of their existence before, thank you. Regarding the infobox, I actually like the way it now balances the lede and TOC, but maybe that's just on my screen - I'd also appreciate the comments of others on that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support It's a very good article. Jayjg is one of the best Wikipedia editors, and he has done an outstanding job. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.