Talk:St James' Church, Sydney

re Deleted content

"- a purpose betrayed by the unusual classical form and central positioning of the northern porch (which also serves as the main entrance) -"

The reason that I deleted this is that neither the classical form nor the position of the porch are an indication of its purpose as a courthouse.

• The Classical form is neither unusual, nor is it any indication that the building was intended for a purpose other than a church.

On the contrary, at the date of its building, the classical style was still the norm. Of London's churches- St Paul's Cathedral, all Wren's churches bar one (as far as I remember), St Martin's in the Fields, St Paul's Covent Garden, are mostly classical.

The earliest churches in Australia are also Classical, St Matthew's, Windsor, being a fine example. There are a few, such as Port Macquarie, that have classical form but pointed windows. But Gothic Revival didn't really get going in Australia until Edmund Blacket arrived in the 1840s.

• The position of the Northern porch half way along the side is also not unusual for a church of that date. Northern porches are common in general, and the location in the centre of the north side seems to have been the norm, in Australia in the 1820s and 30s, see, St Matthew's Windsor, St Thomas's Mulgoa, St Stephen's Penrith while St Thomas, Port Macquarie has a door but no porch.

• In the early days of the colony, churches were usually multi-purpose buildings which served as either schools or courthouse during the week.

--Amandajm 13:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why has this been put back?

• a purpose demonstrated by the unusual classical form and central positioning of the northern porch (which also serves as the main entrance) –

I can't believe that after deleting this back in 2006, and giving really good reasons, including four Australian examples, it was still put back into the article. It's nonsense, obviously! See above! Amandajm (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaargh! I looked up the history of this edit and discovered that User: Gene Poole, the person who had added this unsourced misinformation to the stub, reverted it within 15 minutes of my making the edit!

• I left an edit summary that said the "info was incorrect. See talk page".... and left this full explanation for why the information was incorrect.
• Gene Poole left an edit summary to say that it "wasn't incorrect".

Gene Poole, if you are watching this page, then just let me say that your edit has misinformed the public for the last five years. You obviously either didn't bother read this page. Or absorb the detailed information and the various examples that you were offered.

• The side door and the Classical style are not indicators that the building was designed as a courthouse.

1. The Classical style was the NORM in churches of that date
2. Side doors were the NORM in most English churches and cathedral, with the "west doors" (as the doors at the end are often called) only being opened for major festivals and weddings. (yes, yes, the individual building's orientation to the street affects this.)

Amandajm (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• Give yourself several major headings and place the other stuff under them. At present you have only got major headings. It breaks continuity in the reading every time you have to cross a line.

1. Buildings, subsections: Location, History (Macquarie, Greenway etc), Architecture, Monuments and artworks, Restoration
2. Ministry subsections: Worship, Clergy, Mission or whatever
3. Music subsections: Organ, Choir, Bells. (NOTE: if you have every last detail of the organ, then it constitutes a separate page i itself. Likewise, in ancient cathedrals where the list of organists and organ scholars goes back to the 16th century, they have a separate page).

• It is part of a surviving group of Macquarie period buildings in Australia.

Bad sentence on two points.

1. "Macquarie period" is meaningless to any person outside Australia, and also to many young Australian. It needs to state clearly "built during the governorship of Lachlan Macquarie" (dates)
2. It says "group" and means exactly that. It doesn't mean the scattered remnants of Georgian architecture across the colony. Since I last read it, someone has changed it. The term "group" applies to the precinct, that little clutch of buildings: church, courthouse, barracks, and two wings of of Macquarie's hospital now called the "Mint" and the "Houses of Parliament", that make up a significant remnant of old Sydney Town.

• In 1900, the interior was re-oriented to face east. You can't make this statement unless you have explained how the church was originally orientated. In doing this, you also need to give an indication of why the change was made. Also, refer to the original arrangement as "Georgian" rather than as 19th century. It was most atypical of the 19th century, but was typical of 18th century churches. "Georgian" spanning both, sets it apart from the radical changes that happened in the CofE in Sydney (in some quarters) in the Victorian period.
• Wunderlich copper sheeting since it was constructed in 1822, er, I reeeally don't think so...... Wunderlich first hit the scene at the time they were building the concert hall at the Sydney Town Hall, many years later. If that copper sheeting was Wunderlich, then it was at least 60 years after the building of the church
• and was carried out in the same design as previously. The refurbished spire was re-dedicate.... Forget the bit that says "carried out in the same design". Simply state that the spire was "restored". (This is all that is necessary to indicate that it was the same design.)

Don't used the word "refurbished" and never say "renovated" if you are referring to a restoration, or a "conservation". What happened in the early 20th Century was an internal "refurbishment". Adding the chancel in the early 20th, and knocking out the chapel walls and replacing them with glass in the late 20th were "renovations".

If you want the exact meaning of "conservation" then go and look at the sandstone wall outside the Barracks. It was "conserved" ie. all the flaking stone, horizontal shelfs and fractures were sealed with a mortar that it softer than the stone, and neutral to it. The ingress of water is impeded, without replacing or removing the original stonework. The technique is non-invasive. The spire of St James was conserved back it the 80s or 90s.

They were terribly careful at the time, not to damage the beautiful green patina which had built up over 100 years. Shortly after that, some "restorer" (I don't know who, but I could place a bet) went arounds Sydney stripping the copper-green off all the bronze and copper, including the tarry-diddles on the Conservatorium.

• Following these repairs, further necessary work was identified, including to the roof and perimeter fence.

1. Say "this restoration", not "these repairs."
2. This is a strange statement It suggests that no-one had realised the state of the slates that had been put on by a dodgy roofer in the 1970s. My experience is that if the slates had been damaged by poor fixing, this would have been apparent long prior to 2010. I would be better to say "The next stage of the restoration work ......"

• You talk about the Greenway Award. State who your winning conservation architects are.
• Sister Freda and Reverend Richard Hill cannot possibly link to articles in Wkipedia. Look up "Richard Hill" and find out how to link him. Find Sister Freda's surname. What did Sister Freda do? I presume she was a Deaconess.
• The crypt. This is a very unusual feature for an Australian church.
• The Children's Chapel. Describe it a bit. You mention two artists who were involved, but I believe that the major artist was a woman. Give this person their due, rather than just the famous names .

Don't miss my comments in the previous section on "Deleted content" Amandajm (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all these comments! I am working my way through implementing the suggestions and trying to develop the article further. Whiteghost.ink 06:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Work in progress

The introduction needed reworking after so much has been added and it's better for it. It will probably need doing again as the article develops. There is still a way to go. However, I think the engagement with the legal community is part of the church's total engagement, of a piece with an engagement with the disadvantaged community and that is why I put them in one section. Cruikshank's opinion is surely not one of the most important things here. I thought it fitted into the Tourism section, which is an additional, though unusual, activity for a church. I had earlier removed the "special role" wording after criticism that they were weasel words. Soon I will break out the section on the Children's Chapel to its own article. Whiteghost.ink 08:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Yes, I know it needs more work. That is why I am working on it. For example, the architecture and building history need developing. At the moment I am working on the Chapel.

I put the Cruikshank sentence in, because you cannot use your "weasel words" without them being deleted, but you can use a quotation that indicates the church's significance. It is, in fact, a very very significant building historically, and Cruikshank makes that clear, in a way that neither you or i can do. A bald statement that it is on the National Register is not sufficient.

The introduction should make reference to the important issues that are going to be brought up within the article. The intro should not include a lengthy description of which buildings are in the immediate vicinity (for example) or the detailed history of the commission of the building. These things belong elsewhere. But if the church has an ongoing ministry of some sort (apart from regular services and functions such as Sunday School) then this needs to be indicate in the intro, along with its association with the legal fraternity. This is the case, even if the details are then repeated in a more elaborate form further down the article.

Amandajm (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

When you create another article from the children's chapel bit, you need to leave a paragraph that sums it up. Amandajm (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As for "special role", well honestly, how is one supposed to word it? I have just had a lengthy argument over at the la Sagrada Familia page, because, although the building is nothing like any church built either before or since, and constitutes one of the most amazingly original designs ever conceived, some silly person (to put it in the politest terms I can muster) feels that to be true to the principles of Wikipedia we must simply say that it is based on Gothic and Art Nouveau, and has columns and arches. In other words, nothing in the description actually describes the extraordinary nature of the building. (winge, winge)

The fact is that St James holds a significant Position in Sydney, but defining exactly what that significance is, in terms that are Wiki-acceptable is very very difficult.

BTW, I do churches, and church architecture on Wiki all the time. See Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England and Architecture of cathedrals and great churches.

Anyway, I spose "special role" will be deleted. What's the next option?

Amandajm (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is coming on well, actually. I'll work on the architectural description and drop that in. I've got to be in Sydney tomorrow. I might drop by St James. Amandajm (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see this (that you will work on the architecture bit) until after I added things to that section. You will probably have better and more extensive refs. Also didn't know that there was a principle about the sequencing of sections in church articles - (stable up and changeable down). Helps to know that. I understand the role of the Intro better now too. Glad you think it is coming along well. There is so much possible material about this church that in the end balancing the content might be tricky. Your experience will come in handy there too. (Sagrada Familia, is, as you say, so much more than Gothic and Art Nouveau.) Whiteghost.ink 12:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Chapel of the Holy Spirit

This section needs a rewrite. At the present, it puts the cart before the horse in that the section beigns by stating what the main feature is, before it has told us the what and the where. Amandajm (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Response

• Scrap that lead picture. It tells you nothing about the church except that it has a copper spire and that there are trees and a cathedral near it. It doesn't convey the sense of that elegant little church surrounded by buildings. The view from Hyde Park Barracks looking through the gates tells that storey much more effectively.

- Changed it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• The arrangement of pics with all the important interior views jammed under the lead pic isn't working. They need to be paired. I'll fix that.

- Yes, they need to be paired. I can't get them to work well at the moment. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• The detail of the modern window can be replaced with a view of all the sperm. The pic needs some adjustment.

- Replaced detail picture with broader perspective. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• One of your porch pics will look just fine after I've photoshopped it it improve the angle a bit.

- Added one. Might keep trying for a better one. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• That stupid plastic memorial sign drives me up the wall! I told the designers of the Sydney Museum that it wasn't an effective method of conveying real information, but the gap between heritage practice and media design is enormous.... grumble grumble..... I have worked in both building conservation and museum education...... grumble grumble.... don't even ask me about the restoration of that mural because you wouldn't want to know..... Leave the photo of the plastic sign out. It takes up space and tells you nothing that isn't in the article, except that the designer didn't think about readability.

- Deleted this image. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Some of the expression needs tweaking.

- Still tweaking. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is it thought of as one of his finest works? Don't bother to say that. You and I know that there are approx 10 works reasonable attributed to Greenway. Saying that it is one of his finest works is a bit like saying that St Paul's Cathedral is one of Wren's finest works.......

- Will work on it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Put the church in better context within Greenway's work. People from outside Australia would like to know how very small the colony was at that point, and that he also designed St Matthew's in the newly-founded town of Windsor.
• Georgian town church. It refers to churches that were being built in the growing Industrial towns in England. Georgian churches are typical of towns and not villages.

- Added image of classical portico. Text needs more work. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• The current paint job really is awful! The gold dome is tacky enough without having a stark white wall underneath it. The coffers of the ceiling used to be blue, which had a nice Adamsish Wedgwoody feeling, but that has been changed. If you are a parishioner, put in a word about that white paint in the chancel. It needs to be toned down to something more neutral.

- Um ... Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll fiddle with some of the pics. Amandajm (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just fiddled around with some of the pics, but I can't upload anything at the minute. It's running too slow. Amandajm (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia circumlocution

"St James' is thought to be one of Greenway's finest works." The combination of "is thought to be" and "one of" is total nonsense! We are looking at an architect of ten known works, of which several are minor. It is obvious that Greenway gave a little extra attention to his churches. There is no shadow of doubt that it IS one of the finest, so the "thought to be" is unnecessary, even in the cautious world of Wikipedia. The words "one of" imply that no claim is being made that it is the finest. Amandajm (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Fuzzy

The solution to the roof deterioration is to replace the slates using Welsh slates

Has this been done, or not done? The verb is in the present tense. Amandajm (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been done and the sentence changed. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Decent churches

• If that is going to be said, then it has nothing to do with the Foundation. It goes into the section about the early church.
• If it is going to be said, then the reader needs to know whose opinion it is, since it is an opinion. It can't be stated as fact.

Amandajm (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Any better? I think Symonds is a great source, especially given that it is online and an authentic 19th century voice. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The 19th century church historian, Edwards Symonds, describes "decent churches" and "additional clergy" as contributors to a "better moral and spiritual tone".

• You have again written out any direct connection to St James'. Did Symonds refer to St James' specifically; was he referring to the earliest churches i.e. St James', St John Paramatta, St Matthew's, St Luke's; or was he referring to churches in general, throughout the 19th century?

If he said "St James'", then it needs relating directly.

If he said or implied the earlier churches (i.e Colonial not Victorian) then that implies St James', because it is one of a small group of scattered churches of the Colonial period.

If he did not state or imply either of those things, then it isn't relevant. If he did imply one of those things, then it needs to be reflected in the sentence, otherwise, regardless of how true his observation might be, it's pointless in the context of that paragraph. The sentence, as it stands, doesn't relate to St james'.

Leave out the "additional clergy". It adds nothing. Two churches rather than one implies twice the service. We are talking here about the very earliest period of the establishment of St James. If Symond's late 19th century opinion is going to fit at all, then it has to be relevant to the 1820s.

Amandajm (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I have clarified that Symonds was speaking about the earliest times and his mention of Cowper implies a relevance to St James as well. From a perspective of 1898, I think that his direct mention of 1808 would encompass the 1820s as well, especially considering how few churches he had to base his judgement on. I hope it now exemplifies opinion at the time. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Context and continuity

Although the article is going well, I think it is tending towards "recentism". The more I look at into it, the more it seems that this Church has been front-and-centre in Sydney since it was consecrated, and the continuity of its service to the people and life of the city is striking. This continuity appears in all the aspects represented in the article - worship and ministry; education and music; heritage and architecture; people and events - and it needs to be better represented. So I propose to develop the text and add some historical images in order to demonstrate this aspect and balance out the decades. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the periods that particularly would benefit from expansion are the Allwood period, 44 years, and the Early 20th century. There is no indication of the church's service through the war years. The emphasis on one significant marriage is a overbalance. More could be said about the association with the Courts etc. Amandajm (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:St James' Church, Sydney/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: StAnselm (talk · contribs) 11:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comments: I am happy to take on this review. I have had a preliminary look at the article, and will give it closer attention tomorrow. StAnselm (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not far from GA standard. There are, however, a few OR and clarity issues to tighten up:

1. The lead says "St James' is known for having more liberal and diverse theological perspectives than most other churches in the diocese on certain issues, particularly sexuality and the ordination of women." If that is true, it needs to be fleshed out in a separate section, which the new "Theology" section is on the way to doing. The "an open and inclusive Christian community" quote there, is not enough, however. The clause on the website about "sexual orientation" should be mentioned. But it would be preferable to have a secondary source as well.
2. The reference to Preachers, prophets and heretics: women's ministry in the Anglican Church of Australia (p. 179) is not a particularly good one. Yes, it does use the phrase "conservative exclusive evangelicanism", but it doesn't seem to be particularly neutral on the issue of women's ordination. In any case, a reliable source contrasting St James and the rest of the diocese would be better.
3. The last sentence in the Theology section is a bit confusing. What do we mean by "St James'" position? Statements made by the leadership? Actions taken in the church? Certainly, the event of having Goldsworthy and Blackwell preaching in the church is significant in this regard, but "St James' argued for the change to accept women's ordained ministry" needs a reliable source. And what does "welcoming those in positions of spiritual leadership" mean? Does it mean that Goldsworthy and Blackwell had a formal role in the congregation, or that they were welcome to preach because they were in leadership positions in the Anglican church more generally?

Here are a couple more sourcing type issues:

1. "...along with a more interpretive, less literal reading of scripture than is common in its diocese." This is original research. The Porter reference is more appropriate for the sentence that follows - I notice she describes the church as being Anglo-Catholic, and not practising evangelical worship. But the question of how St James' interprets Scripture is more subjective, and needs a citation.
2. "St James' work for the poor... has been continuous from the 19th century" - that sort of claim should be backed up an independent source.

These are the only points that I can see, though it may take some work getting appropriate references. StAnselm (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Responses

- Yes, it will take some work with the sources. Distilling centuries of theological dispute and variations in practice into a paragraph or two is a challenge - no wonder I left it till last! Will get onto it as soon as I finish some other work due in the next few days. Thanks! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

- Have added a link to a newspaper report about the current Rector's response to the ex-archbishop's stance and yes, the theology section needs fleshing out (but concisely!)

- The connections of a number of ordained women to St James have been included and specific examples of women on the church's staff are given. I have clarified the Goldsworthy/Blackwell reference. Will clarify the interpretive comment in an expanded theology section.

- Have added a quote from the reference that was there about the continuity of service to the poor. There are various other places in the rest of the article that support this claim. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Question: should a link to something be repeated when that something appears later in a list? For example, "Richard Hill" is linked when he first appears (in the section "First years"), and again when he is in the lists of "Past and present clergy", and again in the list of "Bells". Similarly, "Francis Greenway" is linked in the opening para and again in the list of bells. I think it must be helpful to readers to have links in these internal lists (although three times is perhaps too many) but a necessary first appearance in the beginning of an article theoretically ought to preclude a repetition. What is good practice? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask - I have had gentle disagreements with others about this in the past. I often go for one wikilink per section, and so I would think Greenway might be slightly underlinked. I would definitely link everyone in the list of clergy and choirmasters - I assume the ones not linked in those lists don't have articles. (By the way, I've had a good look to see whether Peter Kurti could have an article, but I don't think he reaches the notability threshold. In my searching I found this [definitely unreliable] source that you might be interested in.) StAnselm (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Further on the theology question - is St. James in favour of same sex marriage? That would demonstrate a clear difference to the Diocese's position. Similarly, St James' says "We are a diverse group of people that welcomes all, regardless of age, race, sexual orientation or religion" - has anyone in the Diocese made any statement saying we should not welcome people of different sexual orientation. It might be tricky to find a source confirming this, and so demonstrating that this church has a different theology to the rest of the diocese might be harder than it looks - as opposed to the issue of different worship, which is very clear in Porter. StAnselm (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

- I expect that there are diverse views held in the congregation but for the purposes of the article, I guess that it should demonstrate an engagement with the issues of the day, from Hill's concern for the labourers and Carr Smith's involvement with the question of women's suffrage to the current debate about sexuality. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

- Yes, the other rectors need articles. I have material on Allwood, Latimer Jackson and Wentworth Shields. Richard Hill and William Carr Smith have recently had new articles so they now have blue links. Lots of work is needed on Allwood and Micklem and also Broughton for that matter.

- There have been sermons and seminars on the same-sex issue. Will try to find refs. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've been resisting the temptation to jump in and change things myself, or tag individual statements. But this edit, quite frankly, is original synthesis. What makes you think (other) churches/people in the diocese don't take into account "biblical criticism, cultural changes, translation difficulties," etc.? StAnselm (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the ""...along with a more interpretive, less literal reading of scripture than is common in its diocese." etc etc" has to go. Enough has been said to make it clear that St James' is very different from the rest of the Diocese. However, "biblical criticism, cultural changes, translation difficulties," etc. is very much part of what Theology students study at Moore College. I would tend not to labour the theology issue. It is not easy to sum it up, and I don't think it needs a whole section. Sufficient to deal with it under "Ministry".

It would be advisable to leave the article for a bit, while St Anselm is attempting to assess it. Amandajm (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

- Yes, it is hard not to synthesise. It is necessary perhaps to focus on commonality as much as distinctiveness in providing a general encyclopedic account. Have thus tried to give short overview for this relevant, if very difficult topic. Perhaps the new summary (with citation) works? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• OK, it's been a couple of weeks, and we've made some progress towards resolving the issues. Here are some remaining issues:

1. The word "diverse" in the lead sounds weaselly. Removed.
2. The sentence "One of the first women ordained..." should be moved from the lead to the main body. Done
3. The Porter footnote in the liturgy section should be moved to the next sentence. Done
4. The first sentence of the theology section is still original synthesis. Rewritten
5. The bit about "welcoming" women clergy needs to be rephrased - if it means inviting them to preach, it should say that. As it stands, it sounds like name-dropping. Done
6. The Carnley quote is dubious - does Carnley say that St James' is one of that number? Rewritten

I have had another go at this with the goal of accounting theologically for the differences a visitor might observe. Carnley's book is clear but detailed and comprehensive. It takes as one of its topics these differences in practice and interpretation. It would be evident to a reader/visitor which churches fit into his contrasting descriptions.

This is an interesting way to study theology - trying to get it into two or three sentences with regard for our purpose, audience and genre. Is it better now? I hope it is at least a qualified success. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hope this helps. StAnselm (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

1. (Sorry, I forgot this one) Mention should be made of how they welcome people regardless of sexual orientation. (Perhaps St James' aims to be "an open and inclusive Christian community" welcoming all people "regardless of age, race, sexual orientation or religion") Added

OK, it's not perfect, but even good articles are meant to be works in progress. I'm going to pass it now (since I don't want this review to drag on forever), but I am doing so pointing out that Carnley does not seem to specifically include St James' in his description (though Porter certainly does with respect to liturgy). StAnselm (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Referencing problems

The referencing in the article is a dog's breakfast with various kinds of formatting and other problems. I will do my best to fix some of these problems but I don't pretend to be an expert on doing this. If anyone else feels up to the task please feel encouraged to assist. Anglicanus (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I am conscious of this problem. Need help here. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Afernand74, the refs are now beautiful. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think my work on references is pretty much finished. I followed a "less is more" approach :-). Not happy with something? Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. The following ref should be better sourced imho. I assume it is coming from the parish but not obvious for a casual reader "Church Wardens' Report March–September 2013". Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Which St James?

The question has arisen about which "St James" is the patron saint of the church. Obviously it isn't "St James the Deacon" from the 7th century but either "St James the Great" or "St James the Less". Anyone know about this? Anglicanus (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

St James the Great

Amandajm (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Re Map

I hate them. In fact, I hate boxes, but tolerate them because some people love them

But pushpin maps, I abhor.

• They rarely look good with the lead image.
• They displace the right hand images
• They do not work effectively, because the minute you click, you lose the info.
• Co-ordinates serve the purpose effectively

In this case, on a wide computer screen (which is the usual sort nowdays, the map is displacing the two images of the church.

Either the map goes, or the two images go. We cannot have both. It is a ghastly mess from a point of layout (anyone with a vertical screen will not see the problem)

Amandajm (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Parish

"acquired its own parish in 1835" doesn't sound right to me. It may give the impression that the church bought some piece of land from another parish. I think it is the diocese who creates a new parish when the population grows in an area and then appoints a church as its parish church. I would suggest to replace it with "elevated to parish church in 1835" (Two caveat to my suggestion: English is not my mother tongue and I am not familiar with the ranking of churches (if any) in the Anglican Church) --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Amandajm (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

FAC

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 GrahamColm 10:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC) [1].

---

St James' Church, Sydney

Nominator(s): Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most important sites of architectural, social and organisational history in Australia. The church has made a significant contribution to the city of Sydney since the earliest days of the colony of New South Wales and remains an important player in the city's religious, musical and official life. The article tries to capture the extent of that engagement over two hundred years and communicate the range of notable aspects (architectural, artistic, theological, musical, historical).

I have been working on it for a number of years trying to achieve a concise balance of these aspects. This is the first article I have nominated for FA. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Brief comment: One thing immediately noticeable is the lack of citations in certain areas. Nothing is cited in the "Location" section, and there are numerous instances in the rest of the article where citations are absent from paragraph endings. I also think you need to modify your opening line: "St James' Church, Sydney, commonly known as St James', King Street, is an Australian Anglican parish church situated in King Street in central Sydney." This clunks rather heavily, with "St James", "Sydney" and "King Street" all repeated – the final seven words seem entirely unnecessary. I have not read the article, merely glanced at it; the illustrations struck me as particularly impressive. Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

- I have modified the opening line and cited the Location section. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Jim

Support Comments from Jim Having written a church FA myself, the least I can do is show solidarity! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Current practice at FAC is to avoid refs in the lead, since it is a summary, and everything should be referenced later in the text.

- I have moved all the references in the lead to appropriate places in the body of the article and also refined the text of some of the relevant sections. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Some text is unreferenced. There has been for a long time a completely OTT attitude to referencing here, you will need to reference or remove, however uncontroversial the claim. "Interior" is unsourced, and not purely descriptive —of the cool and restrained character... sympathetic addition...

- I have rewritten this part of the text to be more concise and more simply descriptive."Cool", "restrained" and "sympathetic" are gone. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• You will need references for everything, however obvious. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

- I have referenced it to within a inch of its life, but will continue to scrutinise for missing ones. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is a fair amount of overlinking, suggest running the duplicate link tool

- It took a long time to develop this article in the course of which, some links were repeated. I have de-linked what I can find. Not sure whether things in the captions of images ought to be linked in addition to their links in the text. Caption links would help the reader but is that overlinking? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I cleared the rest. The overlinking tool treats the lead and main text separately and ignores captions. Links in the latter are encouraged. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• A location map within Sydney and a ground plan might help readers

- A location map has been added. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Link Sydney, apse

- Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• St James' is also known for having— St James' has

- Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• and eponymous—stating the obvious

- Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• had plans for a large cathedral to be built on the present location of St Andrew's Cathedral but these plans—avoid repeat of "plans"

- Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• a Pound—lc

- Done. Should I put in a pound sign with "one" before it? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think either one ⋅pound or £1 would be better than a pound Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

- I agree. Replaced with symbol and numeral. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• ''Woodd—just checking spelling.

- Woodd is correct. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Jackson's theological ideas did not make him popular with everyone, some conservatives regarding him as a heretic—We are given no indication of what heresy he may have been practicing.

- Apparently he was more intellectual and more favourable to the results of the German theologians than conservatives would have liked. I have revised the text and added refs. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• shell—more usual to have "scallop" or "scallop shell"

- Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Windows" is unreferenced, so is "Music"

- I have consolidated the text from the "Windows" section with the "Interior" section and added refs to "Music". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• NSW Environment & Heritage (2013). "St. James' Anglican Church". State Heritage researcher.—I see no indication that the publisher is State Heritage researcher. In fact the words appear nowhere in the text. NSWE&H is the publisher, AFAIK

- "Researcher" must have been a typo. I have changed it to "Register".

• Official website. Rector and Churchwardens, St. James Church, King St., Sydney. 2013. Retrieved 17 November 2013. —again, where does it give the rector and churchwardens as the publishers on the linked page?

- Fixed. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• ''Angus & Robertson Publishers or Angus & Robertson?—stick to one version

- "Angus & Robertson". Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk)

• NSW or N.S.W.?

- "NSW". Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• '' Dan Cruickshank in the BBC television series Around the World in 80 Treasures (2005). —I think you can give at least the episode (3) and preferably the timings

- I have added "Episode 3" to the ref. As for timings, is that relevant, given that the broadcasts would have been done at different times around the world? The date of production/release is given. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• I was thinking more of timing within the broadcast, but I'll let that go unless other reviewers are unhappy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Architecture And Design (20 October 2010). "Sydney's oldest church spire saved" architectureanddesign.com.au —I wouldn't give the author when there isn't one, and I'd give the publisher as Architecture and Design. Similarly for bellringers ref. Also Design 5 ref (although there is a name associated with the page at the bottom). In general, I don't think publishers should normally be shown as a web site.

- In changing author for publisher, I think I have fixed this but I am not sure if I have understood correctly what is required. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Anthony Jennings dates?

- Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's good practice to not have the article title in captions unless it's unavoidable. I think there are still some images where you could safely lose the name of the church, since it's assumed to be what is shown unless otherwise stated. As far as I can see, there is only the Jennings comment that is unresolved now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

- Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that this was pretty good in terms of content right from the start, and you have made every effort to follow our arcane policies and fashions at FAC. I've changed to support above now, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Hamiltonstone

Welcome, Whiteghost. There is much excellent work here, and as Brian mentioned, the illustration of the piece is extraordinary. Agree with Brian that there is an unusual absence of references in many places, that will have to be rectified. Other comments:

• repetition in two different sections of the information that the Bacon brothers were responsible for windows installed in the early twentieth century.

Done I removed the repetition. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• "St James' continues to maintain a formal and sacramental liturgy and has weathered the storm of criticism from a diocese with increasingly "Low Church" practices". This sentence appears out of place, isolated amongst material that is about more clearly historical aspects of architecture, heritage, use of the building etc. At the very least it belongs in the 21st century subsection, as it refers to "continuing" to do something.

Done Yes. I moved this to the Liturgy section where it seems to support a point rather than being out of place. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• "St James' is one of the few Sydney Anglican churches that has maintained the norms of mainstream Anglican tradition...These practices distinguish St James' from most Anglican churches in the Sydney diocese" The effect of this para seems to me to be of having a bit of a dig at the Sydney diocese. But it relies on a single source, who is an author who stands very much on one side of that particular debate. It might be better to begin the para to read that "Writer Muriel Porter has argued that..."

Done I deleted the part about the diocese's difference in style as it is mentioned elsewhere and left the other part to describe the liturgy after resequencing the points being made. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

May look at more later, once the referencing is sorted. Ping my talk page if you have any questions. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure why most of the text under "Location" is about the context of surrounding buildings and streets, some with no substantive connection to the church (eg. court, philip street). Some could be deleted, but I also think the material about the surrounding notable colonial buildings (barracks, mint building etc) might be better in the later section on architecture, establishing its heritage / architectural significance. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Done I have rewritten and relocated much of the text in this section. Some has been moved to "architecture" and some has been deleted as suggested. I hope the relevance is now much clearer. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In general those changes are good, but the text "The church's ministry to Sydney's legal fraternity is facilitated by its proximity to buildings used by the profession..." is not supported by the cites - i see no evidence of some particular ministry to the legal fraternity. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Done I have moved some content from the "Location" section to the "Community Service" section to support this claim better in the same way that some of the "Location" material was moved to the "Architecture" section. I also added an image. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• There is sometimes excessive information about the rectors in the text, which I would have thought should remain focussed on the church itself. You might want to write a related list article, List of rectors of St James' Church, Sydney, if you want to aggregate that information. It should mainly be kept where the text about the person ties in to what happened to the church (eg. commissioning alterations to reflect religious views, or major public controversy about the church). There is also duplication: there is all this detail about the rectors, yet there is also a list of them near the end. Suggest delete the list. Material about rectors that could go:

• "Robert Cartwright, appointed as Hill's successor, had served at Windsor and Liverpool. In 1838, after a short tenure at St James', he resigned to take up an itinerant ministry in the Riverina and Southern Tablelands[22] where he built his own church and from his base at Collector, "travelled upwards of 25,000 miles" in the course of his work.[25] Cartwright was followed by the clever but eccentric George Napoleon Woodd whom Broughton shortly transferred to Bungonia (a rural parish).[26][22]"
• Details regarding Allwood: "...educated at Eton College and the University of Cambridge, arrived in Sydney.[14][27] Although in very poor health upon his arrival, Bishop Broughton appointed him to St James',[14] in which parish, having recovered his health, ..." and "He served on the senate and as vice-chancellor of Sydney University."
• Details regarding Jackson: "...described as having "an alert and somewhat impetuous brain, at work in an atmosphere conservative and conventional".[31] "His sermons were not so much opposed, as simply not understood."[32] A young and comparatively inexperienced cleric from Cambridge,..." and "...lectured at Sydney University, addressed conferences, spoke at synod, was secretary to the newly established Sydney Church of England Boys' Grammar School[33] and introduced a magazine called The Kalendar - one of Australia's first parish papers..."
• Regarding Carr Smith, "Carr Smith worked with the Sisters of the Church and became the Chaplain of the Sydney Hospital."

Done I have tightened up the information on the rectors that was in the history sections as you and User:M.O.X both wanted. I moved the detail about Carr Smith to his article that I wrote earlier and have saved the detail about Jackson for when his article is written. The detail about Allwood was already in his article (a pre-existing one that needs work). I retained the information about Allwood's education for the reasons given earlier in this discussion. I think the list of rectors should stay because that is what a reader would refer to and it also gives their dates of service. It is true though, that detail about them in the general text is perhaps not on-topic. I thought about creating a list article for the rectors but I think their having individual bio articles would be more useful.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• There is no substantive referencing for the para that begins "The patterns of worship and community service established by the first rector continue to the present..." The only two cites are to hundred-year old newspaper articles used to substantiate the claim about what used to happen at St James. We need an independent reliable source for the claims about current practice.

Done I have added two website refs - one to a tourist site which gives the service times and one to the church's official website which keeps special service times updated. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really. I looked at both sources. The St James source provided no text to support the contention for the claim of continuity in patterns of worship and community service; the second website did at least list the current pattern of services but it was a pretty poor-looking source that for all we know is aggregating data from places like wikipedia and organisation websites. Current practice is adequately dealt with in later sections in any case. I have removed the first two sentences.hamiltonstone (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If the continuity comes across in the rest of the article and we don't need the sentences, then good. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I believe the section on the choir should be deleted, unless there is historically significant information verifiable from reliable sources. (eg. the role of George Faunce Allman perhaps?) hamiltonstone (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Done This section has been tightened. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done - the overwhelming majority of this text remains uncited - for FA it will need to be removed if reliable source citations cannot be found.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Re-done I have rewritten the section to show the continuity of the choir from 1827 till now and added citations. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, sort of. The following elements still have no cite:

• "The current choir is composed of about a dozen semi-professional adults. They sing on Sundays at the 11.00 am Choral Eucharist, Wednesdays at the 6:15 pm Choral Evensong, monthly at the 3.00 pm Choral Evensong held on the last Sunday of the month, as well as at a number of midweek feast days held during the year."
• "...performed with international touring groups such as with the Tallis Scholars' Summer School; broadcast on ABC Radio, both in their own right as well as with leading ensembles such as Australian Baroque Brass; given a recital at the Art Gallery of New South Wales; and toured the Southern Highlands. "
• "In January, during the summer holiday period, St James' presents three full orchestral Masses during which liturgical music composers such as Mozart, Haydn and Schubert is used for its original purpose and incorporated into the service. On these occasions, the choir is joined by a small orchestra."
• The list of choirmasters (bar one)

In addition, the way that historical material has been added represents a kind of synthesis of news sources being used as primary sources, rather than as secondaries, as WP requires. What I mean by that is: you are quoting a number of reports as proof the choir existed, but I feel that 4 of the 5 actual reports themselves are of unencyclopedic content - material that itself isn't relevant to or enhancing the article ("and a few months' later a singer is being publicly criticised: "If her pronunciation were as pleasing as her notes, she would be entitled to unqualified praise."[146] In 1829, there is a call for people "of either sex" to join the choir[147] and by 1897, the setting for the choral communion is specified in reports as Marbeck's.[148] By 1901, the choir's annual picnic is being reported"). I would suggest just "St James' first had a choir in early colonial times, when Mr Pearson in 1827 accepted the office of choir leader.[145]" and delete the rest of that para.

Fixed? I have rewritten the choir section again and found more references for it. Is it better now? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That is significantly better. However, I can see three problems. First, I don't think the quote is very interesting or of encyclopedic significance in this context, and I would omit it. Second, i think your revisions have introduced inconsistency in the footnote / referencing style. Should not Pleskun be cited Harvard style and listed in the bibliography? Someone should have a run through to check this (but see next point). The biggest problem, though, is that I don't think Pleskun meets our criteria for being a reliable source. It is a self-published work by someone who does not appear to hold a significant post (not an established music academic, for example), and does not appear to have published other works on the subject. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am painfully aware that I was unable to match lovely consistent reference style. After engaging in some battles with it I was defeated. I could not yet the new book refs into the Bibliography without creating further problems. Need help with this coding!!! The books are good sources. (I have their physical copies before me.) It is a pity to have to remove Pleskun as the list of Australian composers whose work was premiered at the church is impressive. I rather like the quote as it is what the a contemporary choirmaster would say and since Pearson was the first I thought it showed the continuity and gave the tone but perhaps it should be shortened. Will think on it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The new Pleskun reference looks beautiful now. Thanks. I think if it has an ISBN number it must be good enough as a a source. I have removed most of the premiered composers from the list in the text. As I commented below, in response to User:99of9, there were too many and if that Pleskun reference stays, readers can easily look up the others, since the page numbers are there. I have also de-emphasised the Pearson quote, which is, as you say, not so interesting to justify a blockquote but I think good enough to run in the text. Do you agree?

Anyone can get an ISBN - it doesn't mean squat, I'm afraid. I would normally take a hard line against such a source, but let's see what others say - it certainly isn't a contentious subject area, so that at least counts in its favour. I'm afraid I find the quote boring and off-topic, so I am unmoved. But I'm just one opinion, and I'm not going to oppose FA on that ground! hamiltonstone (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, okay, I have reduced it substantially because it is a bit boring and because I am grateful for your ref fix. I have a citation about an unknown woman dropping dead during a wedding. I could add that for a bit of excitement? :) Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I added this odd report to the "Congregation" section because it seemed to support the point. Then I removed it because was unhelpful. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this all Fixed now? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It is all fixed, but I left this unstruck so people could see that I left open the issue of whether we accept the Pleskun source. It won't affect my support for the article.hamiltonstone (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you also put the other new book source (John Whiteoak and Aline Scott-Maxwell, footnote #121) in the bibliography please? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Done.hamiltonstone (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• In the para that begins "The church was constructed between 1820 and 1824..." there are two instances where a sentence contains a direct quote, followed by two citations. You need to separate the citations, placing immediately after the quoted words the cite from which those words come. At present, the reader cannot tell which of two works used those words. This can be particularly important in cases - such as this one - where one of those citations is not independent. The article relies at times significantly on church publications. This is OK for facts such as when a rector served or when a service takes place, but it is not OK for contested information or statements as to the significance of merit of the church or its buildings. We cannot rely on the church itself to assess its own merit, whether architectural or otherwise! Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed "Fine Georgian" are the words of the historians Judd and Cable; the other reference is to the 1963 history of the church which on p12 explains in detail the changes that were made by Carr Smith's plan. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I noted two instances above, but you appear only to have fixed the first.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, can't see the second one. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Relying on the "virtues of simplicity and proportion to achieve his end",[81][82]..." hamiltonstone (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2014 (e nUTC)

Fixed "virtues of simplicity and proportion" is quoted from Freeland. Apperly & Lind are supporting the points about design. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• References (particularly references to websites recently added I think) need to be improved and brought into line with others. Best to use the {{citeweb}} template. They are missing things like the publisher and retrieval date.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Started. Fixed I fixed one of them and am looking for the others. I was tired and lost the ref plot. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Done some more (diff). Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:MOSREF. There just aren't enough details here. And I'm not sure why this is being done as a harvard-style footnote using the {{sfn}} template, given that it isn't a reference ton item in the bibliography. The better approach is along the lines of footnotes 5 or 6 (though that is the bare minimum of bibliographic info). Here's a switch I did with one of them, using the citeweb template. Have a go at the others, and get back to me. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed? I believe these are now all swapped out from the sfn style to the cite web style. It took a while but here's the diff of all the edits. There are now no more of this type left as far as I can see. Hopefully this is what you've been looking for. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That is much better. One further thing: Footnote 178 you have the retrieval date but not the date of publication. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Footnote 178 isn't a web reference so I think you don't mean that one. Nevertheless I checked through all cite-web references and ensured there is a year or date parameter in all of them (diff). Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

My mistake for not making my point as a separate bullet: I did mean the Peter McCallum article (now note 184) lacks a publication date. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Ref #84 (McCallum) now has a publication date. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Footnote 103 states that a window was the gift of certain people. I'm not sure why their identities is important but if it is, we need a citation for the fact.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean footnote #106? It appears the Lloyd family were generous benefactors and they donated the altar in memory of their son who was appointed as the first server at St James'. There is a reference to this fact in the "Interior" section. I added the name in response to a reviewer request for it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The footnote states "Gift of Mr & Mrs L.T. Lloyd". My question is: what is the reliable source for the information that the window was the gift of the Lloyds?hamiltonstone (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed I added the source. I was previously daunted by adding a ref within a ref but when pushed, it seems to have worked all right. Yes? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Footnote 24 (Dr Micklem) has this "The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney: Fairfax Media)" but others have "The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney)" and others eg 167 "The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, NSW)" and others again eg 29 "The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW: 1842 - 1954) (NSW)." There needs to be consistent treatment of these newspaper sources (sorry to keep raising this!). In this case the last of those four formats is one generated automatically by the Trove database of the National Library. For all articles that are linked to a trove copy (and i think that is most if not all -re-1955 news items), I would adopt that format. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

All done I have gone through now and made consistent not just SMH references but all references to newspapers. Here is the diff. When it is a newspaper article in Trove I have used the style that they recommend (e.g. [[The Newcastle Herald|Newcastle Morning Herald & Miners' Advocate (NSW : 1876 - 1954)]] ) and I have removed the "location" field in these instances since the town and/or state is always mentioned in the Trove title (see also for example "Illustrated Sydney News (NSW: 1853 - 1872)" or "Queanbeyan Age (NSW: 1867 - 1904)"). It would be redundant to repeat that information. By contrast, in the much smaller number of cases where it is a reference to a contemporary newspaper article online (e.g. smh.com.au) I have left the "location" field in place and used the simple, un-piped, link to the newpaper's own article (e.g. newspaper=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]|location=Sydney, NSW| etc.). The only exception to this is the Trove link to the Australian Womens Weekly which uses the formal trove title and a location field since the Trove title does not include any location information in it. I hope this is satisfactory. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Marvellous. (you gave the wrong diff, so I hope you don't mind but I inserted what I think is the correct one). hamiltonstone (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• The final image of a bell appears to have lost its caption.

Fixed Somehow the pipe fell off. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• There is no cited source for the entire last section of names of the bells and the final sentence re the Mears Bell. I realise it is self-evident that a bell called Lachlan Macquarie is named for the governor - what is not self-evident is that that bell has a name in the first place.

Ref added One news source gives the names of some of the bells. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult, but you a need a ref for all the facts, not just a selection of them. It can be a St James page in this case (and do keep that news item, it is an excellent source), but there has to be something.hamiltonstone (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ref The two sentences about the bells (dedication and names) have been merged to show the reference to the pdf that gives their names better. The weights are also in the ref.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent and very diligent work by Whiteghost and colleagues. Incidentally, this is one of the best illustrated articles I've seen in a long while. Well done, support, assuming the bell names get a citation.hamiltonstone (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to suggestions

Thanks, people. I will work through these problems. If you find any more, please advise. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I know you are new here, but please note that you should not strike comments yourself, it's for the reviewer to decide whether the response is adequate. Just write on the next line an indented "Done" (don't use a template) or a longer explanation if necessary, and sign each response. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Ok. I thought I was supposed to do it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• "Changes" image caption should end in period, 2006 image caption shouldn't

  • All the image captions now have consistent punctuation. Wittylama 00:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• File:St_James_church,_Sydney.jpg: the museum isn't the author

• Could you clarify please? Both that file and File:1 St James Church lighter.jpg (the one that is used in the article) list user:Sardaka in the author field not a museum. Wittylama 00:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Er, no it doesn't? Here, author is listed as "Powerhouse Museum". Even if it listed Sardaka, that's not correct either...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was looking at a different image. I've now updated the metadata for that picture - taken by Henry King - including the category for the photographer, database record in the Powerhouse as well as Flickr Commons. (diff). Wittylama 04:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Does Australia have freedom of panorama for stained glass? It definitely doesn't for engravings or murals, so you'll need to provide additional licensing info for those. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• According to Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#Australia "'works of artistic craftsmanship' such as...crafted glass" is ok so that should be fine. The contemporary stained glass in the 'holy spirit' chapel is in copyright, but is most certainly permanently installed in a public place. I've added a FoP license tag to the image. Wittylama 00:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

• Comments I'll jot some queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

commonly known as St James', King Street -? never heard this....and I live here. Still, as an atheist I don't really dwell too much on these things...

- That's just the way it is. The address is King Street and the website starts with sjks. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

wow, I learnt something then....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Since its early ministry to the convict population of Sydney, St James' has maintained a continuity in its service of the city's poor and needy. - not fond of the wording here - sounds weird....

Fixed I rephrased it. Is it better? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Across the square the Hyde Park Barracks building, Greenway's "masterpiece" designed to align with the church. - needs a verb?

Fixed Yes, you are right. It does. I added one. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

In the late 1820s, the St James' suffered from a major scandal. - "the" before St James? Also, it flows better if you flip the clauses and place the bit before the comma at the end.

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

and in 1827, on visiting St James', entered into a conflict with a parishioner - "entered into a conflict" is a bit wordy and flows oddly. Could be reworded more succinctly. Better yet, do we know the nature of the conflict...

Fixed Rephrased to be tighter and give a better explanation as well as a better idea of the nature of the conflict. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Missed "entered into conflict" before. Yes, odd. Now reads "came into conflict". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

and was in danger of being resumed as the site of a railway station - "resumed" is a funny verb here to my ears...

- "Resumed" is the correct technical term for this. It is the term used in the sources and also the term still used in similar circumstances when the government wants to acquire land for the purposes of public infrastructure. If the land on which St James' stood had been resumed for a railway, the church would have been demolished. Similarly, extending the railway terminus into the Park, according to Cable & Annable (1999), would have "render[ed] the position of St James' impossible". (p.26) I have used a more direct quote to clarify. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

St James' continued to be a participant in the life of the city throughout the 20th century and the locus of many notable events - people participate, not inanimate objects. In fact I'd let the facts speak for themselves and trim to, "St James' was the locus of many notable events throughout the 20th century"

Fixed Rephrased and tightened. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "As in previous centuries," as it adds nothing. Reads the same without it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

- I meant to write "as in the previous century" (since there was only one before the 20th). The idea was to convey that notable events were not new to the 20th century - they had been happening since the beginning. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

where he built his own church and from his base at Collector, "travelled upwards of 25,000 miles". - the last segment needs some sort of preposition I think...?

Clarified Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There were a number of threats in the 20th century to the church's historic environment - not happy with this segment either as I think it can be written better but concede nothing comes to mind straightaway....

Reworded I had another go at this to give it a better flow and make more sense. Hoping to have succeeded in showing that it kept on going in the 20th century, in spite of colonial architecture being unfashionable and the land being valuable. Oh, and the small matter of World War II. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

One expression of St James' long-standing concern with social justice is the Sister Freda Mission,... - this comes across as laboured. I'd trim and just write what Sister Freda Mission does

Fixed Yes. Added a fact about its date of commencement and re-phrased. Hopefully it is more direct and clearer. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

has been celebrated as an "architectural gem" - "celebrated" comes across as effusive; why not just "called"?

Fixed Was trying to emphasise the notability but perhaps waxed too lyrical. Changed to "called". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

While Sydney prospered, St James' had an acute shortage of money.. - I don't think "While" is a strong enough contrastive here...I think I might say "Although Sydney was prospering, St James' had an acute shortage of money..." or something similar.

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The stained glass fanlight depicting James and John, the sons of Zebedee - link the biblical figures and unlink further down.

Done Relocated link and added one to Zebedee. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Just an encouraging note, I don't think there are a huge number of tweaks needed to tighten prose and I think this is doable over the course of this FAC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Overall, leaning support on comprehensiveness and prose, pending supports by others. The prose has tightened up considerably, which is a Very Good Thing - but have read it a few times now so may have missed some (so I can't rule out others finding prose issues) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from M.O.X

"In 1839 the Reverend Robert Allwood arrived in Sydney. He had been educated at Eton and Cambridge and had ministered in Bristol. Although he was in very poor health upon his arrival, Bishop Broughton appointed him to St James'. His health recovered and he served the parish for 44 years until his retirement in 1884. Allwood was an important patron of education in Victorian Sydney. Under him, the parish school expanded to 400 pupils and a training college was established for secular and theological students. He served on the senate and as vice-chancellor of Sydney University."

That is just one of many paragraphs which have little relevance to the Church itself. How is Allwood's background at all relevant to his ministry and service?

Response His education is significant as a reason for choosing him, as well as in light of the level of education of most people in the period and for St James' reputation for scholarly leaders. I have tightened the sentence to try to make it more concise and in doing so, have removed where he served earlier. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Response Allwood's education. This is the Colonies, 10,000 miles from England. Allwood's education was highly significant in a place with no university. Allwood's ministry framed the ethos of St James.

Then there is the matter of lofty writing:

One of Greenway's finest works...

- There is a discussion on the Talk page about this - it is generally agreed and the consensus seemed to be just to accept that and say so. There is also the "fine Georgian" quote as a second source. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Response: There is no question whatsoever about this being "one of Greenway's finest works". If it wasn't for the existence of St Matthew's, Windsor, we would simply be writing "Greenway's finest work". There are about ten (10) buildings or part thereof that can with reasonable certainty be attributed to Greenway, so "one of the finest is certainly not making too strong a claim.

Apart from these vestries, which retain the established style and the proportions, the church externally remains "fine Georgian" much as Greenway conceived it. Relying on the "virtues of simplicity and proportion to achieve his end", Greenway maintained the Classical tradition, unaffected by the Revivalist styles

- This may be controversial in terms of language in WP, but the "simplicity and proportion" part is quoted as a fairly standard piece of architectural criticism in order to highlight how the effect of the building is achieved and in particular, how it differed from what was going on at the time. Georgian style is rare here and this section is an attempt to explain what it is and how other architectural approaches, such as adding more decoration or copying other styles (known as "Revivalism") are different as well as more common in Sydney. Revivalism is also linked to help make this distinction. However, if there is consensus that this attempt to describe Georgian should be excised, we will have to do so. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Response. It's Sydney. New South Wales has thousands of Victorian buildings, but only a tiny number of Georgian/Early Colonial buildings, of which three are churches of a refined Georgian style, and several more are vernacular Georgian or early attempts at Gothick (St Thomas's, Mulgoa, 1838) For someone outside Australia it is hard to conceive how a church less than 200 years old, and of an architectural form very common in England, and even reasonably common in the eastern states of the US, can be so rare that it is regarded as a national treasure of the utmost importance. The little precinct of buildings dating from 1811, 1819 and 1824 represents the material core of Australia's history. In the history of this country, the buildings are the equivalent of Westminster Abbey and Westminster Hall. Amandajm (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I see, however, that still doesn't change the fact that there are still present in the article, trivial facts like such as this one:

"In 1900, the Governor, Earl Beauchamp, presented to the church a number of embroidered stoles made by the Warham Guild of London, along with copes and chasubles."

These are not encyclopedic and are tangentially relevant at best. James ^{(T • C)} • 12:30am • 13:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Response it' not trivial. Believe me, in Sydney, the possession of embroidered stoles, copes and chasubles is highly unusual. These are among the "treasures of the church". Describing a church's vestments (if they are rare) is common, execpt that in England one might be describing vestments that were from the 17th century, and possibly even medieval. Amandajm (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Response There are two reasons for the Beauchamp and vestments sentence. The first is that Beauchamp was one of the many Governors who had specific dealings with St James' (in this case, he gave gifts). The article tries to show that such connections with the Governors are part of the church's relationship with "official Sydney" - a point which is made in the lead. The first Governor obviously was Macquarie who wanted the church built. Davidson is another mentioned, as is the current one, Bashir, who, nearing the end of her term, attended the church for this year's Festival of Nine lessons and Carols, as recently as last week. The second reason is that the matter of vestments has been an issue of some dispute in the Diocese for more than a hundred years and St James' takes a different view from the rest of the Diocese. So this sentence helps build up the picture with a succinct, citable fact. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: Please do not remove maintenance tags, I applied those to the sections because the matter of weasel words was not isolated to one or two sentences:

Response: Obviously, the article is currently under close scrutiny and specific concerns are being addressed via this discussion. Adding tags is unnecessary, unhelpful and distracting. Please stop adding tags and instead consider the responses and amendments being made so the article can reach an acceptable standard. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The porticos are of Sydney sandstone; the roof, originally shingled, is of slate and the spire is wooden construction sheathed in copper.

The original interior differed greatly in layout from that of the present. There was no structural chancel, the focus of the church being a large pulpit.

At various periods, the crypt was neglected.

Response

1. The first sentence seems clear. I do not know what you are referring to as a problem.
2. This section is about to describe the church as it currently stands. Previously, in the section History there has been a detailed description of the previous state of the church, the triple-decker pulpit, and the aisles on three side. But all this is history. The reader, who gets to this sentence, has been informed of that stuff, and is now simply reminded that this is not the original layout.
3. At various periods, the crypt was neglected. The sentence can probably be omitted, and just state that the crypt was restored. Amandajm (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, per the quotes and the matter of lofty writing, I have applied {{peacock}} templates to the relevant sections. Until the writing style is inline with the stipulations of the Manual of Style, I'd ask that you refrain from removing these tags. Thank you. James ^{(T • C)} • 12:36am • 13:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Response As we are all working on fixing it, we don't need tags right now. The article is not abandoned or unnoticed. It's under review, which is precisely what tags are hoping to achieve. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Its original ministry was to the convict population of Sydney, and it has continued to serve the city's poor and needy in succeeding centuries.

That statement is itself trivial as, on its own, no significance is lended to that sentence immediately after. I'd suggest revisions based on what is available in the given references. James ^{(T • C)} • 12:43am • 13:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Response This sentence in the lead is an attempt to do two things: the first is to inform readers who do not know right at the beginning that a large proportion of the congregation were convicts (which is rather unusual); the second is to summarise the fact (subsequently developed in the body of the article) that the church continued to serve other marginalized groups as the centuries went on. If the sentence is failing in these purposes, it will need to be improved. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, I question the relevance of various statements located throughout the article, one of which is located in the lead. These issues need to be addressed and I feel this FAC is being rushed. I do not support the article's promotion at this time vis-à-vis these issues. James ^{(T • C)} • 3:15pm • 04:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree (regarding writing style) - I've found some examples to trim, and suggest "most highly-regarded" for "finest" (more neutral-sounding). I will try to find more to list and/or fix. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy to trim and make more concise - as I said, it's been a long time researching and writing and there has been a lot of things to check and work out how/whether to include them. However, the reviewers have specifically asked that references be removed from the lead which I did systematically and rewrote parts of the text at the same time. The citations and explanations for the claims made in the lead are in the body of the article. The lead tries to summarise the contents of the article which aims to cover the range of notable aspects of the topic. These aspects include architectural notability (things about the building) and organisational notability (things about the activities of the leaders and the congregation); notable events (things that happened at the church), as well as some historical/ biographical/ social aspects that are notable insofar as they are connected with it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to why this sentence is necessary:

St James' provides a comprehensive record of Sydney history in both physical and documentary form.

There isn't exactly a shortage of Sydney history, why is the St. James collection at all significant or important? James ^{(T • C)} • 5:34pm • 06:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Response a comprehensive list of births, baptisms, marriages and deaths from earliest colonial times constitutes an extremely rare and highly valued primary source for historians. There is hardly another such record available. The fact that even though it is no longer the only record of these events, it is still a part of the record right up to the present day, makes this a truly remarkable document. The citation points out that at the beginning, these were hand written. The "physical " record is the architecture, whose rarity and value is discussed above. Perhaps it needs to be better expressed but it is very notable and important fact. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

An additional part of the historical record is provided by the memorials, which, as a collection, are of unique importance in Australia because of their number, their early dates, and the historic significance of the individuals who are commemorated. Amandajm (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Support from Mirokado

An interesting article which I am sure I can support once you have responded to a few comments...

• A few images are missing alt text, in Crypt and Children's Chapel, Memorials and monuments, Worship and ministry, Theology, Education, Description, Architecture, Chapel of the Holy Spirit, Music, Choir, Bells

Done All the images now have alt texts. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• • File:1 St James j.JPG, being really fussy here, the alt text could start with a capital letter

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• File:SydneyStJames gobeirne.jpg is missing the |alt= for its alt text

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• To comply with MOS:EMDASH, please use either unspaced emdash or spaced endash consistently in sentences.

Fixed I think these have all now been done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The article currently has xx — yy (xx — yy, spaced emdash).

We need either xx—yy (xx—yy, unspaced emdash) or xx – yy (xx – yy, spaced endash).

Depending a bit on the fonts being used, you normally can't see the difference in the editing or code view but the emdash is wider in the article, just as "m" is wider than "n" in a proportional typeface. endash and emdash are the first two items in the Wiki markup selection of the Insert dropdown which appears under the editing window (if CharInsert is enabled under Preferences -> Gadgets). --Mirokado (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone help with this? I understand the problem but I have failed to grasp how to make them consistent. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll do this now. --Mirokado (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Done I changed them to spaced endash, since you would not have added the nbsp unless you wanted them.

I copied the two characters for ease of copying. You can then either search for each emdash and change it to endash or, as I did, use another friend, Preferences -> Gadgets : Advanced : Add a sidebar menu of user-defined regex tools. --Mirokado (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Lead: The parish at St James' have a more liberal perspectives than most churches in the diocese on issues such as....
  • Firstly, grammar: you probably mean "The parish at St James' has..." and "... a more liberal perspective ...".

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• But I did not see the information in this sentence expanded and sourced in the rest of the article just by searching for it. It would help if the reader can search for "sexuality" or "ordination of women" and easily find the relevant text in the body of the article. (Womens' ordination is in fact covered adequately, sexuality is mentioned but the stance taken is implied rather than stated).

Fixed? A search for "sexuality" in the article will show that it appears in two places - in the lead and in the "21st century" section where there are two references about the church's attitude to the subject. "Sexual orientation" is also in the "Theology" section. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern here may be more "how I would try to do things" than "something necessary for a FA". I will leave it unstruck in case we can agree to any update but am now changing the section heading to "Support".

Only by reading the first sexuality reference is it explicitly clear that St James' is taking a liberal view in the debate (a generous minister might welcome all while preaching strict traditional values). This could be briefly stated explicitly in the theology section. The second reference is to a rather clever sermon which is more relevant to the stance on refugees (also mentioned) than sexuality.

The coverage of women in the ministry is fine, but I would prefer to see the same text ("ordination of women" or whatever, with the current link) appearing in both the lead and the relevant section. --Mirokado (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

--Mirokado (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• First years: 1824–38:
  • Archdeacon Scott ordered that Hall should vacate the pew he rented at St James' for himself and his six daughters. As Scott continued to occupy the pew, constables attended Sunday services to prevent his occupation of the pew by boarding it up and making it secure with iron bands. Looks as if this should read "As Hall continued ...".

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hall appealed to Reginald Heber, Bishop of Calcutta, and to the law for damages. No mention of Heber in the reference (currently number 20). Why to Heber? The ref says he won 25 pounds damages, we should say that or the reader will say "and...?"

Done I explained this oddity in the text. Sydney was in the same diocese as Calcutta at the time. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have also added a mention of the 25 pounds. --Mirokado (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Changes: 1884–1904:
  • ... a new portico as and entrance to the tower ... Should be "as an entrance".

Clarified Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• An apse had been set into ... The tense implies that this change had already been made. If that is so, we need a bit more context about when and why and perhaps that bit moved earlier in the narrative. Alternatively, say "An apse was set into ..." if the changes were contemporaneous.

Fixed. Better now. Good call. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• 20th century: a luncheon at which the chief guest was the Governor and Lady Davidson. Should be ". the chief guests were ...".

Corrected and clarified. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• 21st century:
  • Three services on Sundays supplemented by weekday services, remains the norm. Should be "... remain the norm", unless we say something like: "The schedule of three ...".

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• ... and an organ postlude of ... followed. "followed" is redundant here, that is what a postlude does.

Done. Good point. Thanks. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• ... wife of a former Prime Minister of Australia, Gough Whitlam, ... is better as "... wife of former Prime Minister of Australia Gough Whitlam, ..."

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Architecture:
  • please wikilink the first occurrence of pilasters, I had to look them up.

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• ... its walls defined by brick pilasters into a series of bays with the same proportions as the wall itself. I think "divided" would be better than "defined". I'm having trouble trying to imagine how the bays can have the same proportions as the wall itself. Perhaps a picture would help, although we still need text for the visually impaired.

Fixed. Yes, the only possible answer to this description is that the bays are the same proportion as the wall, turned vertically. Too much! Amandajm (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Interior: ... a commemorative gift from the family of the first server at St James'. Please add the name here, "... a commemorative gift from the family of whoever, the first server at St James'."

Done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Crypt and Children's Chapel: ... in 1977-78. Needs an en-dash. Please check the rest of the article. User:GregU/dashes.js can be your friend.

Fixed I think these are all correct now. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Memorials and monuments: I suggest the lang template thus: "{{lang|la|a latrone vagante occis}}" for "a latrone vagante occis".

Done I didn't know about this template before. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Renovation, restoration, conservation: Please wikilink "The restorations were awarded the National Trust Built Heritage Award ...". Ah, I see it is linked a bit later on with the full title, but this is the first occurrence...

Link relocated Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Education:
  • Please wikilink Benevolent Society and Bible Society. Purists will say that we shouldn't add wikilinks to a quotation. I suggest, since this is just a list, restricting the direct quote to and "various convict establishments and a range of schools.", in which case you can clarify "the Hospital" and "Industrial Schools" too.

Done Links and quote amended. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• ..., presided over by the Rev. C. Kemp, "of inestimable value ...", ... This will flow better if the two comma-separated phrases are joined by a conjunction instead of another comma: ..., presided over by the Rev. C. Kemp and "of inestimable value ...", ...

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Choir: The choir have ... – and broadcasts regularly ... Probably "has" and "broadcasts" here, since later usages are also singular. (I think it is OK to use "they" when referring particularly to the choir members).

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy new year. --Mirokado (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for these helpful suggestions, Mirokado. You have picked up some things that do need fixing. I have been out of internet range for a few days and will work through your suggestions (and the others) as soon as I can. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. I tweaked a bit in this edit. --Mirokado (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your responses and updates. The remaining unstruck issue can be dealt with by normal editing, so I am happy to support this excellent article for featured status. --Mirokado (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from User:99of9

Disclaimer: evangelical Christian from the same diocese

• I've rewritten and moved a sentence about being the oldest extant church. Since this article is about St James as an institution, it is not the oldest church institution, it is only has the oldest extant building. Feel free to further copyedit, but the distinction needs to be clear.

Thanks. Good distinction. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "moderate Anglo-Catholic"... the word moderate only appears in the lead. I agree it's probably a useful term, but because it could be contested, we need to leave it out or add a sourced sentence in the liturgy section.

Done I have sourced the word "moderate" in the "Theology" section and the 'anglo-catholicism" description is extensively discussed throughout the article. So I think such a summary in the lead is now fully justified. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is the word "liberal" in the lead equivalent to Liberal Christianity? If so, wikilink. If not, I think we need a link here and in the theology section to the applicable theological classification.

Linking it to that article would be misleading. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

So is there a clear theological classification the teaching fits into? --99of9 (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

See above "Moderate anglo-catholic" ought to work for an article such as this. It is discussed and cited and "Anglo-Catholic" is linked. There is a great deal that could be said (and indeed has been) about the theology but I do not think this article can support much of that discussion, given its scope. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) I have added some more text to try to give a sense of the history of this in the colony and the Church of England as a whole as well as some flavour of one relevant meaning among the many accorded to the word "liberal".Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The cites are more watertight now. It's a pity Carnley didn't specifically mention St James'. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added an extra reference to Carnley earlier in the article to give some support his involvement with this particular church. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Revd Susanna Pain - I've slightly edited this sentence for clarity for those not familiar with the diocese.

Yes. Good. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "a more liberal perspective than most churches in the diocese on ... sexuality" Can the different position on sexuality be spelled out better in the Theology section? "welcom[ing] ... regardless of ... sexual orientation" is a statement that most churches would support.

Reworded I made this more explicit and moved the reference. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Both cites used the term "same-sex marriage" not "sexuality", so I've switched it over. If you find any refs about their theology of sexuality per se, feel free to re-add it later. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The parish at St James' has a more liberal perspective" I think you need a better subject to this sentence... the parish is a geographic region. It would be hard to source "the parishioners", so perhaps simply "the current teaching" (or can you source a persistent historical difference)?

Deleted "the parish". Yes, that was sloppy. In fact, there has been a persistent historical difference which I hope the body of the article communicates. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm happier with the current "St James' has..." but I still think "The teaching at St James' has..." is technically better, since evangelicals within the church may prefer not to be bundled in (just as many at St James' may not be happy with the statement "Sydney is an evangelical diocese"). --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Refined as requested. There are also several different meanings of "Evangelical", some of them historically significant in this context, but can't really go into that as well. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• I presume the railway station was named after the church. If so, it would be good to say so and source (to a newspaper from the time?).

• Footnote number 1 in the St James railway station article (pointing to sydneyarchitecture.com) would be perfect for this purpose - and also to cite the fact that the precinct itself is often called "St James" (asking for a footnote for that fact was a reviewer comment from someone else) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_James_railway_station,_Sydney#cite_note-SAI-1 . Wittylama 02:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Done The naming of the station and this reference have been added.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "At one time, the parish extended as far as Sydney Heads but St James' acquired its own parish in 1835" does this mean the area to Sydney Heads was initially shared (with who?)? "At one time" is vague - isn't this "until 1835"? Can you reword to make this clearer?

Done Tried to make this clearer by rewriting and adding another reference. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy with extra refs, but I find the current version confusing: "The geographical parish of St James' is one of the 57 parishes of Cumberland County, New South Wales, which in earlier times extended as far as Sydney Heads, encompassing other churches including those from different denominations."

Was it Cumberland County that extended as far as Sydney Heads, or St James' parish? What do you mean encompassing other churches? Surely St James can't have ever encompassed any Anglican ones, as they would have their own Parish? And I don't think it makes sense to encompass non-Anglican ones, because even if they're in an Anglican Parish, they're either non-parochial or they have an overlapping (e.g. Roman Catholic) parish of their own.

Tried to make this clearer by simplifying. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to have the encompassing removed. I still can't parse which thing extended to Sydney Heads. Cumberland County still does. St James' didn't have its own Parish yet? --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've copyedited this to my understanding of the situation. Feel free to reword further. --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• "box pews" is there an applicable wikilink for those not acquainted with these?

Done Yes. There is. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "there was no visual emphasis on the altar, which was a small portable table" ... so at the time it was better called a Communion table than an Altar?

Done Text altered to reflect this. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "a partner with Arthur Hill in [+ownership of] the newspaper The Monitor."

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• The start date for Allwood is inconsistent - 1939 in section heading 1940 in rector list.

Fixed Allwood arrived late in 1339 and started at St James' in 1840.

• We need a ref at the end of the first paragraph of the Allwood section.

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Where does "400 pupils" come from? I couldn't find it in the ADB article. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Tightened Also, some of this is in the Education section, so I removed the figure. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Good. --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oxford Movement and Tractarianism both redirect to the same place, so I'm not sure we need two wikilinks. But I'm not sure, because it's not obvious they'd be the same.

Clarified I have explained that they are the same thing and why in the text and smoothed some of the related chronology. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Henry Latimer Jackson. Served for 10 years, is there nothing in the sources about him personally/theologically?

Added There is quite a lot about him and I have restored some to give some continuity. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this info is relevant. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Carr Smith led St James' towards Anglo-Catholicism" the article said that Allwood already did that. Or have I missed some distinction between the Oxford Movement and Anglo-Catholicism?

Clarified Sacramental worship had been characteristic since Broughton and Allwood. Carr Smith carried it on, especially with all the changes to the building. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"setting "new standards of ceremonial"" needs a grammar fix. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The repetiton of "ceremonial" has been addressed as requested by Johnbod. The grammar is okay, I think. The "thereby" is understood in the sentence. That is, "so he was able to help St James' play a "notable part" in Sydney's revival of Anglo-Catholicism, [thereby] setting "new standards of ceremonial". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

But ceremonial is an adjective, unless you use it in a way I've never heard. What about "setting new standards of ceremonial [worship]" or "setting new standards of ceremon[y]"? --99of9 (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a quote and the Macquarie Dictionary says the word is also a noun meaning "a system of ceremonies, rites or formalities prescribed for or observed on any particular occasion; a rite or ceremony." Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've never heard that usage, it's me who needs a grammar update! --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ecumenical is not wikilinked at its first occurrence.

Fixed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Organ recitals such as that in 1936 of music by Bach were given during weekdays." This sentence sticks out a bit, it could be left out I guess. But it also has to be reworded because it implies that organ recitals were only given on weekdays. In the whole twentieth century the organ was never used on a Saturday?

Rewritten I tried to make this flow better and be more accurate. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Challenging sermons continue to be preached in the 21st century when issues when issues of violence, refugees, marriage and sexuality are all topical." Sounds a bit puffy. Supported by only the text of a single sermon and a newspaper article which doesn't mention the word sermon. I think this needs to be reworded.

Reworded Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The church maintains a relationship with the government and the legal community as it did when it served a convict population under a military government." Unsourced, and vague. What is the nature of the current relationships?

Rewritten This was intended as a summary of things explained elsewhere in the article but I have tried to make it more explicit here and added refs to show continuity. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Adjusted I've actually jumped in here - see this diff - and moved the "relationship" claim down to the "community service" section and out of the "21st Century" section. I've also included a multi-sentence quote from 1936 which overtly praises the relationship between this church and legal community. Wittylama 05:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Its commitment to social justice and education, beginning with efforts to serve both convicts and settlers, continued with support for working people and those affected by war and, since early in the 20th century, by visiting those imprisoned or ill and offering practical help to the city's homeless" This is in the 21st century section, but both sources are from around 1900.

Added website for current source. Will look for others. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The new link doesn't have anything about "support for working people and those affected by war". --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ref added and text clarified Tried to demonstrate that some services have been added in 21st century but the principles remain the same as do many of the recipients of those services. Ref to war service added. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm ok with the point you're trying to make, but we need a ref on each aspect you claim. Glad to have a source on the war affected. Does Cable mention "support for working people"? --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The quote comes from Cable and Annable (p.16) where it is in the middle of a discussion about post-World War II problems, moral issues of war and peace, support for young people etc. I have tweaked the section to remove the word "working" but the main point of the 21st century section is about continuity of service in this young century to a range of different types of of people in a range of different circumstances. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• The article has two "Revd X" and one "Revd. X", so we need consistency, but I think you'd be better off either leaving it off entirely, or spelling it out as Reverend. I don't remember what the MOS says to do.

Fixed. The article "Reverend" consistently used it without a fullstop so I've used that as the standard. I've also changed all instances of "Rev." and "Rev" to "Revd". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Eucharist" is not wikilinked.

Done. Linked the first instance of the word and also the first time it is used in the "Liturgy" section (where it is most relevant). Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Does Carnley 2004 specifically mention St James' as a subscriber to the quoted theological styles?

Reworded He does not specifically mention St James' but it is clear from the discussion in his book and the evidence of the liturgy at St James' that this is one of the churches to which he is referring. I have used the quotes for the benefit of the reader because Carnley is an articulate authority on the matter and his position as (ex) Primate is as relevant as it is possible to be. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is tricky to write then, but I like the new wording better. However the current wording sort of implies that Carnley thinks his tradition "goes back to the Elizabethan theologian Richard Hooker". I have no idea if he does or doesn't, but I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth. Can you finesse this too? --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Reworded Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The congregation remains much the same as it was in 1900", but there are no sources for this after 1900.

Reworded to show how/why the congregation is an unusual as ever. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Still no recent reference. "in the 21st century, regular patronage by, and programs for, governors, politicians, the legal community and the homeless create a similar mix" These are referenced elsewhere, so at a minimum you can re-cite the same references. However, are you sure they "mix", are the recipients of Sister Freda program usually referred to as part of the "congregation"? --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Rewritten I tried to make clear that the people using the church are of a great variety and that this feature is both notable and historically consistent. The services and some of the programs for the disparate groups are all referenced and discussed elsewhere in the article so I did not want to repeat them. The point is that attendance at the place is for a range of reasons, including of course, worship, and that managing the congregation (which does contain many of these groups) can be a challenge, as the sixth rector observed. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the text is ok now, but the refs don't support the text of this "Congregation" section. (And the refs that are there seem messed up... is the Lady Munro incident supposed to support Carr Smith's quote?) --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The Lady Munro reference is now removed. It was a primary source example but not specifically mentioned in the text. Now, all sections of the congregation part have clear footnotes. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The church has also been associated with the Order of St Michael and St George since 1950." What does this actually mean? I read the wiki page, and it seems to be mostly an honour awarded to individuals. How is the church associated?

Clarified As with start of the law term, there is a special annual service. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me which references are citing each sentence in the following text (is it basically all Cable, with a Kemp quote one-off? If so, I'd suggest putting in some extra Cable links on key sentences): "By 1823 Greenway's school building had been erected in Elizabeth Street and the principal St James' School was situated there until 1882, becoming the Anglican "normal" school with more than 600 students and a range of experienced teachers. In secondary education, a Sydney branch of the King's School operated briefly in the Greenway building and Bishop Broughton operated the St James' Grammar School in a building erected in Phillip Street. The Grammar School, presided over by the Revd C. Kemp and "of inestimable value to the then youth of the colony",[126] lasted until competition from the new University of Sydney led to its closure in 1857. Bishop Broughton also set up St James' College to provide tertiary education for secular students as well as to prepare students for ordination. The St James' School closed in 1882 and the government resumed the Greenway building.[140]"

Ref added The ref to the "normal school" part has been added to separate it from the "inestimable value" quote.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• The education section skipped the twentieth century. I take it there's just nothing in the sources?

Fixed I expanded the section a little and added another link. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The link (St James "education" page) doesn't mention the 20th century, or the start date of any of the current programs. I have no problem if you leave out the 20th century as you originally did, I was just curious if you had overlooked relevant stuff in references. --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Tightened Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll live with that. --99of9 (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Arthur Mason attended the annual choir picnic" is too trivial to be worthy of mention.

Fixed Have rewritten this. My original intention was just to show that Mason was one of the choirmasters. It is written better now. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• "At one time, St James' was described as the "exception" ..." vague given the extent of its history and the fact that it's out of chronological order. I suggest stating the year.

Done The source (Rushworth) says "The Sydney Choral Society commenced at a time when standards of church music in England were at a low ebb, and with the possible exception of St James' Church, were probably as bad, if not worse, in New South Wales." I have added the date of 1845, which is when the Sydney Choral Society commenced, and re-ordered the section. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• "composers such as Gordon Kerry, Gillian Whitehead, Michael Atherton, Ann Carr-Boyd, Colin Bright, Clare Maclean, Jessica Wells and Kent Farbach" If these people are thought notable, redlink, otherwise don't bother naming them?

Deleted many of the names Yes. there were too many names but if the references in the Pleskun source stay, readers can easily find the other ones themselves. Gordon Kerry should have an article but doesn't.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• "feast days" is probably not common parlance, so a wikilink might help.

Done I added the appropriate link about feast days in the Anglican church. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

---

I will be on wikibreak for the next week, and it looks like things are wrapping up. I'm happy for others/delegates to evaluate my last issues. Otherwise Support. --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Choir

Whiteghost.ink, there is a quote about the choir that is in the feminine. I take it that the critic is referring to a particular soloist. Could this be made clear? Also, I would drop the sentence about the organist attending the annual choir picnic. It is seriously un-notable, regardless of how well referenced. On the other hand, you could say something to the effect that the choir for many years held annual picnics at whatever location they held them. Amandajm (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed The choir criticism sentences and the picnic sentences have been rewritten to make the points more clearly. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• Support all points addressed.I'm close to support. I have been keeping half an eye on this as it has improved, but I need to find the time for a proper read through. Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Lead - no link to "Anglican". The architectural style should be characterized here in a word or two.

Done A link to the Anglican church in Australia has been added and the link to Georgian architecture has been relocated. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• History - link for "convict labour"

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Link (or link at first mention): Bish of Calcutta, portico, vestry, Bish of Oz, Church of England, Sydney University, parsonage, spire, sanctuary, chancel, choir, organ, mosaic, parish hall, liturgy, Australian architecture?, shingled, slate, wrought iron, seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, crypt.

Links done including the difference between architectural choir and musical choir. (I should have done these links earlier.) Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "restoration of ancient ceremonial" ceremonial repeated just after - use "liturgy"?

Changed Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Register of the National estate" Estate, no?

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "the Classical tradition" lk Neoclassical architecture I think. Don't capitalize "Classical" - various; do capitalize "Modernist"

Done Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• more later Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• "The Grammar School, presided over by the Revd C. Kemp and "of inestimable value to the then youth of the colony",[19] lasted until competition from the new University of Sydney led to its closure in 1857." could do with some explanation. How did they compete - weren't they for different age groups? Does this actually mean the college?

Edited There was an error in the ref coding. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Some of the prose in the sections on the ministry seems a touch peacocky, as mentioned above. I'm not sure the Bishop of Newcastle's anodyne remark is needed.

Re-written I have removed the Bishop's remark and instead tightened up and restored an earlier version of the way the legal relationship has endured. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Back in the lead, was there a ref anywhere for "has been described as one of the world's 80 greatest man-made treasures"? Frankly this would suggest a list which was felt to need an entry from Australasia, & it might be better to phrase it that way: "was the only Australian item on a list of the world's 80 greatest man-made treasures", if that was the case, with a ref of course.

Fixed I have made this appraisal more specific as requested. The refs, including to the article which contains the list are still there in the architecture section. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's it I think. A very thorough article, very well illustrated. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Delegate note

Is there a source review for formatting/reliability buried in the above comments? If not I'll ask Nikki or Brian if they'd do the honours... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a comment from Hamiltonstone asking, "References (particularly references to websites recently added I think) need to be improved and brought into line with others." After a bit of back-and-forth this has now been struck out as successfully addressed. Is this what you mean Ian? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Something along those lines. The next question -- and I admit I probably should've noticed this before -- is whether anyone has spotchecked sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, which is standard procedure for someone at their first FAC.

Also I note that several parts of the article appear uncited, including:

• Last bit of middle para of 21st century

I've now added a ref for this. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Last sentence of Architecture

Removed until such time as I can find a ref for this fact specifically at a later date. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• First para and last sentence of second of Interior

For the first para, this now has a few footnotes added - notably to the official heritage register which lists all renovations ever made. For the last sentence of the second para it has now been simplified and a specific reference for the remaining fact has been included. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• First para of Renovation, restoration, conservation

This paragraph has two sentences - the first is an introduction to the kinds of renovations that are talked about in greater length (with many footnotes) elsewhere. The second gives two specific major renovation dates (in which much of the renovations mentioned in the first sentence occurred), which are both now footnoted. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Last sentence of Bells

This has now been footnoted too. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lastly, although the images are generally very nice, there's an awful lot of them, giving the article a very cluttered appearance on my 14-inch widescreen -- have no reviewers had any similar concerns? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding images, several reviewers commented favourably on the illustration and no one has expressed a concern about this. e.g. Hamiltonstone - "the illustration of the piece is extraordinary" and "this is one of the best illustrated articles I've seen in a long while"; Brianboulton - "the illustrations struck me as particularly impressive"; Johnbod - "very well illustrated". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I checked a fair few online sources I was interested in for veracity, and would have noticed if they were too closely paraphrased. I haven't checked any of the offline sources. Regarding images, all my screens are wider than yours Ian, but I had no problem. I'm generally in favour of pictures for a topic like this, unless they're covering the same concept twice. --99of9 (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The First years subsection was the main culprit for clutter in my opinion, the rest not so bad -- a horizontal gallery of pictures at the end of that part might be better -- however I'm not about to override consensus on a matter of aesthetics. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that all of these comments are now all addressed. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

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

James Street Cathedral

James Street Cathedral in Hamilton, Ontario was built in 1879 on land donated by Nathaniel Hughson in 1835. Haitian terrorists tried to demolish it in the decade after the election of Obama. Create a separate article for the church and link to anti-demolition squads. Nathaniel Hughson (16 July 1755, New York - 1 November 1837, Hamilton, Ontario) was a Loyalist who moved to Canada following the American Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.86.47 (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Organist?

I think it is highly unlikely that the organist shares a name with the US President. Can someone check this and update if not true?

It was just some simple vandalism due to the higher visibility the article had while being "Today's Feature Article". It, and some other minor vandal edits have been removed. Sincerely, Wittylama 12:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St James' Church, Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sjks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/b-os19-sermon-15.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on St James' Church, Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icssydney.com.au/index.php?id=435
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151007010038/http://sjks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/b-os19-sermon-15.pdf to http://sjks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/b-os19-sermon-15.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on St James' Church, Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140113035353/http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/bdm_fh/bdm_crh.html to http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/bdm_fh/bdm_crh.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140309030417/http://www.supremecourt.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/supremecourt/sco2_history/sco2_oldsupremecourt_building.html to http://www.supremecourt.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/supremecourt/sco2_history/sco2_oldsupremecourt_building.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140118232706/http://www.dwdnsw.org.au/ves/index.php/article/videos to http://www.dwdnsw.org.au/ves/index.php/article/videos
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219034523/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20120215033 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20120215033
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140127101134/http://banknotes.rba.gov.au/otherbanknotes.html to http://banknotes.rba.gov.au/otherbanknotes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214052911/http://sjks.org.au/childrens-chapel/ to http://sjks.org.au/childrens-chapel/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130818021822/http://fom.org.au/ to http://www.fom.org.au/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140114141725/http://sjks.org.au/education/ to http://sjks.org.au/education/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140114141732/http://sjks.org.au/education/st-james-institute/ to http://sjks.org.au/education/st-james-institute/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110090933/http://www.graemeskinner.id.au/checklist1788-1840.htm to http://www.graemeskinner.id.au/checklist1788-1840.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140114141840/http://sjks.org.au/orchestral-masses-2014/ to http://sjks.org.au/orchestral-masses-2014/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110092027/http://sjks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/MUSIC_Further-information-about-the-Choir-of-St-James.pdf to http://sjks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/MUSIC_Further-information-about-the-Choir-of-St-James.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St James' Church, Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903101204/http://www.thecom.com.au/about.html to http://www.thecom.com.au/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St James' Church, Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140125083415/http://sjks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/October-2011.pdf to http://sjks.org.au/wp-content/uploads/October-2011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Short description

The addition of a short description has been reverted with the edit summary "Undid revision 840340970 by Pbsouthwood (talk) this is Reverse engineering Wikidata, please don’t duplicate work. That template has no consensus for use." In fact a strong consensus for its use was established in February 2018 by a lengthy, well-supported debate at the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 145 #RfC: Populating article descriptions magic word. The close read:

The consensus is #5 for the first question - To populate the magic words by starting with blanks, and allowing them to be filled in manually and/or by bot (as per usual bot procedures). The consensus is #2 for the second question - Show no description where the magic word does not exist.

A full list of previous discussions can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions #History, but in brief, the template is merely a convenient wrapper for the {{SHORTDESC: }} magic word, to allow tracking categories, etc. As the purpose of the template is well supported, and consensus on its use is clear, I'd like to suggest that the reversion is self-reverted and the established consensus is abided by. --RexxS (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)