Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:47, 28 July 2009

Stanford Memorial Church

Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Stanford Memorial Church/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Stanford Memorial Church/archive2

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)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. To support this, I suggest using table syntax or {{multiple image}} instead of galleries, as per H:IOUF #Gallery tag, category, table of images; see, for example, Unification of Germany #Germania depicted. Eubulides (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

There, now I've got it. Thanks for catching the ones I missed. Done, I think. --Christine (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for doing that. Eubulides (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. --Christine (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Amandajm, you are introducing unformatted citations; 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)

• 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)

Fixed the error; the correct word is "gems"--inset like gems". Thanks for the catch. --Christine (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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 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)

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)

• 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)

They are not "swept" that means curves rising or falling in Baroque terms; if you look here they are concave or convex (I can never remember which is which). Giano (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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" in Boston before becoming a university chaplain, first at Tufts University. 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. 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." 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Fixed. The sanctuary is not used. --Erp (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Giano (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just as I am about to support, I see someone has made this edit , 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)