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 02:22, 13 October 2008 [1].

---

Congregation Beth Elohim[edit]

Nominator(s): Jayjg ^(talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is an extensively researched account of the history of a Brooklyn congregation. The article recently achieved GA status, and has been significantly improved since then. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Images meet criteria; all free with proper license/date/author/publisher where applicable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative supportTony (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC); I've read only the top part, and found a few things that need explication. Please write for non-experts.[reply]
• Comma after the closing quotation marks (name).
• I'm distant from the topic, but the early objections to "practice" and the issue of reforming them sounds interesting. Perhaps it's too detailed to go into it, though. But other details seem not as important (someone was paid $150 a year, someone else $75 a year?).
• "Men and women sat together"—please write for non-experts. We're left to presume that this is unusual or undesirable under normal circumstances ... (at the time?)
• "Moderate reform services"—Now I want even more to know about this.
• "New accommodations"—a little precious; why not "a new building/location"? Does "accommodations" come from the source? If so, it's an ideal opportunity to avoid duplication. Tony (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your helpful comments. Regarding them:
    • Comma fixed.
    • The sources aren't really specific about which practices they wished to reform, but in general the kinds of changes congregations were making at the time were a result of the Reform movement in Judaism, and I've now linked the term to that article. Regarding the salaries, I thought they added some interesting color regarding salaries at that time; $6.25 or $12.50/month sounds like very little to today's ears. Also, it might be helpful for those with more knowledge to compare to other salaries at the time.
    • I've now added a phrase and link to the article regarding the traditional separation of mean and women in Jewish services.
    • Again, the source doesn't explain, but the link I've added to the previous mention should help.
    • I've re-worded per your concerns. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Has Tony been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not by me, but I don't know if anyone else has. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Is there an organizational principle in the references? I'd really rather see them alphabatized by the first part of the ref, so that folks can find things. Right now, if there isn't an author, it's hard to figure out where to look for the full reference.
• Per the MOS, you need to put the link titles in the references in upper and lower case, there are a few that have parts in all upper.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note the link checker tool is showing some pages as a soft deadlink, but they worked fine with clicking on them. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Regarding the references, I've re-organized them, with helpful headings, and made them essentially alphabetical; what do you think? I'm open to other suggestions. Also, I've fixed the link titles. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works fine. At least the reader can now find the references easier with the subheadings. (It's not the way I would have done it, but it works for the reader and they should be able to figure it out so all is good!) Looks good, you're all done! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Elcobbola:
  • Image sandwiching in the "State Street" section. See MOS:IMAGES
  • Image:Congregation Beth Elohim stained glass window.JPG is a derivative work. Was this window made for the sanctuary (i.e. in 1910)? When did the artist die? As an unpublished work, it would not be PD if the author died after 1938.
  • Honorifics such as "Dr." and "Reverend" should not be used per MOS:BETTER. Эlcobbola _talk 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. I think you've fixed all the image issues, except for the stained glass window one. I don't know whether or not there are copyright issues with this image, nor do I know anything else about it. I'm fine with removing it if people feel that's best. Also, I think I've now removed all the honorifics, but please let me know if I've missed any. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, if we don't have the information to determine that the window is in the public domain or freely licensed by the author, the image should be removed. Эlcobbola _talk 22:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still there, need resolution on this from Elcobbola. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Per the advise of an image expert, I've modified the copyright information on the image, which should satisfy the concerns. I'm willing to remove it, if required, but in any event, shouldn't the discussion of the copyright status of the image be happening on Commons, not here? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Elcobbola is a Commons admin and good at resolving issues; has he been asked to revisit? (If I understand correctly, Elcobbola is saying we need the date of death of the author of the window; has that been added?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, they haven't been. I'll just remove the image from the article, and let the issue get settled on the Commons. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • O.K., the image is gone. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Re the section heading "Recent events", see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I think I've fixed it now. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I was too brief :-) I see you added those as of linked years: I don't know when those awful things crept back in to MoS, but someone should see if Tony's paying attention. I was only referring to the title itself: "Recent events" needs a more precise heading, avoiding the use of recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've changed the title to "Events since 2006" and removed the linking to "as of 2008". Does that fix the issues? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think there has been a misunderstanding here. See my comment here. The initial edit you (Jayjg) made to add the As of 2008 link is indeed deprecated, per Wikipedia:As of, but the correct change would be to add ((As of|2008)), which will still put the article in the hidden category stating that the article needs updating, but will output plaintext. This is not 100% certain, as the MOS link to Wikipedia:As of may date from the time the old Template:As of (in 2006) was being used, not the version created in February 2008. I've asked on the template talk page for comments. Carcharoth (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • O.K., I've added the "As of" template where required, and it appears to be working. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "as of year" links are deprecated per WP:As of and the discussion regarding it that took place at the Village Pump. However, they should not be outright removed as they still serve a functional purpose. Instead they should be converted to the ((As of)) template as appropriate. Links of the form [[As of Year]] should be formatted as ((As of|Year)), and links of the form [[As of Month Year]] should be formatted as ((As of|Year|Month)). This will output the plain text "As of [Month] Year" and categorise the article appropriately, but not create a wikilink in the article. See the template documentation for more options and information – Ikara ^talk → 16:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per above, I've added the "As of" template where required, and it appears to be working. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Kablammo:

Lede:

• "currently located at". Why not just “located at”?

• "attempted four failed mergers". It makes it sound like the congregation was attempting failure in mergers. Can this be rephrased?

• "currently the largest". As above. This may not age well.

Early years:

• "$150/year". Use prose, as you did later on in paragraph.

• "the congregation became known as the ‘Pearl street synagogue’". Check caps here.

• On the events of 1882–83, you mention in successive paragraphs that only heads of household were members. Are both mentions needed?

State Street:

• Second paragraph, first sentence-- I suggest last clause be changed to "Sparger moved there in 1891", or else recast the sentence. Then clarify which “congregation” is meant in the following sentence.

1909-1929

• Second paragraph: "was 'doomed': in his words," seems oddly punctuated. Replace the colon with a full stop, and make the next part "As Lyons said at the time:", or some similar construct.

• Fourth paragraph: "and in 1928[2]–1929"— the distracting footnote could go at the end of the sentence.

• Last paragraph of section, last sentence: Maybe split this into two, and clarify what the members were resigning from—the committee or the congregation?

1930s

• Second paragraph, first sentence—why not split this into two at the colon?

WWII

• First sentence, fifth clause— "by then" seems unnecessary as the time is clear.

In general, the article would not be harmed and probably would be improved by splitting some of the multiple-clause sentences into shorter declarative sentences. That may be a matter of personal preference, but there seem to be a lot of colons and semicolons in the article.

These comments are suggestions, and not an Oppose. Kablammo (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very thorough review. Regarding your comments, in order:

Lede:

• "currently located at". Why not just “located at”? I used "currently located at" because this is its fourth location, but I've now removed the word "currently", since it's been at its "current" location for almost 100 years.
• "attempted four failed mergers". It makes it sound like the congregation was attempting failure in mergers. Can this be rephrased? Good point. I've rephrased it to avoid the misleading implication.
• "currently the largest". As above. This may not age well. Yes. Re-worded to avoid aging issues.

Early years:

• "$150/year". Use prose, as you did later on in paragraph. Fixed.
• "the congregation became known as the ‘Pearl street synagogue’". Check caps here. Yeah, I didn't like it either, but it's a direct quote, and I was reluctant to change it.
• On the events of 1882–83, you mention in successive paragraphs that only heads of household were members. Are both mentions needed? Good point, missed that, fixed now.

State Street:

• Second paragraph, first sentence-- I suggest last clause be changed to "Sparger moved there in 1891", or else recast the sentence. Then clarify which “congregation” is meant in the following sentence. Good point, done.

1909-1929

• Second paragraph: "was 'doomed': in his words," seems oddly punctuated. Replace the colon with a full stop, and make the next part "As Lyons said at the time:", or some similar construct. Fixed.
• Fourth paragraph: "and in 1928[2]–1929"— the distracting footnote could go at the end of the sentence. Fixed.
• Last paragraph of section, last sentence: Maybe split this into two, and clarify what the members were resigning from—the committee or the congregation? Thanks, I have clarified.

1930s

• Second paragraph, first sentence—why not split this into two at the colon? Because it's an example, backing up the claim made in the first clause of the sentence.

WWII

• First sentence, fifth clause— "by then" seems unnecessary as the time is clear. Good point, removed.

In general, the article would not be harmed and probably would be improved by splitting some of the multiple-clause sentences into shorter declarative sentences. That may be a matter of personal preference, but there seem to be a lot of colons and semicolons in the article. I like semi-colons and colons; they make writing more interesting, and help tie thoughts together. :-)

--Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support promotion to FA. No major issues, although I would expand the meaning of the word shamash to mean beadle or sexton. JFW | T@lk 08:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I've made the changes you suggested. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment footnotes need to be consistent - some simply say "NYT" others have "TNYT". YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good eye, thanks! All fixed now. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Although the linkchecker shows that all seven reference links to the Congregation Beth Elohim organization's site are forbidden, empirically they are accessible without any problem. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nicely done, mazel tov! dvdrw 03:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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