Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christ Church, Newton/archive1

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

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2015 [1].

Christ Church, Newton[edit]

Nominator(s): JackTheVicar (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a historic church and Anglican congregation in northern New Jersey that was chartered by George III. I have nurtured the article from creation, through DYK, and it was promoted to GA by Drmies. I think the article has been improved and that FAC, the natural next step, would polish off any last burrs. I hope you enjoy! JackTheVicar (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi, vicar, and thanks for this interesting article. I think, however, you should standardise your use of the ecclesiastical honorific. At present you have "the Rev.", "the Reverend" and "the Rev'd". All are OK, but you should choose one and stick to it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brianboulton I've brought them all consistently in line with the Anglican form of "Rev'd" throughout. "Rev." kept slipping in, must be the Presbyterian influence :-). JackTheVicar (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note--the Vicar and I chatted some about formatting the references, and I'm curious to see what y'all think about it and what your suggestions are. Jack, I won't weigh in yet since it's pretty much the same version I looked at, but I'll be glad to have a look after there've been some suggestions. Feel free to ping me at that time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • JackTheVicar, as I also have a historic church up for FAC, I've taken particular interest in your article for Christ Church. First and foremost, thank you for your hard work on this article, and for submitting it here for review and promotion to FA. I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review of your article, and I assess that it meets the attributes outlined at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable; its lede meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section; and it is written in an appropriate structure with consistent citations. An image review and other comments and suggestions are shared below. Thanks again for your hard work and dedication to this topic. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • JackTheVicar, upon my re-review of the article and a review of your responses, I hereby Support this article for promotion to Featured Article status. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by West Virginian (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lede and overall
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines Christ Church, establishes the church's necessary context, and explains why Christ Church is otherwise notable.
  • The info box for Christ Church is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
  • The image of Christ Church in the info box is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and contains a GNU Free Documentation License, and is therefore good for inclusion in this article; an alt caption per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images has also been incorporated.
  • The article is quite lengthy, so it would not hurt to add additional content representing the history section in the lede so that is a more comprehensive synopsis of the article's discussion. For example, when discussing the charter of the church, it is notable enough to mention that the colony's last royal governor, William Franklin, granted and signed a charter on behalf of Britain's King George III. Additional content from the architecture and brief mentions of some of the church's more prominent or noteworthy rectors would also work well here to enhance the lede.
  • Also per WP:LEADCITE, because the lede contains information that is cited below in the prose, it is not necessary for its content to include inline citations.
  • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
  • For the template at the top of the page, consider adding the NRHP data in a similar fashion, as it is incorporated in St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan).
    • Reply: As the church is not on the NRHP in an individual basis, but instead as part of a historic district, I opted against including that in the infobox. I actually wish the infobox template used for churches were a little less gangly and less space-consuming in its design. JackTheVicar (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • JackTheVicar, you can actually include the NRHP information as the church is a "contributing property" to a National Historical District, but this is optional, and you are absolutely correct about the gangly nature of the church template. I opted for the NRHP template for Hebron Church, but either is acceptable. Your info box looks great as is. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations, Rev. is recommended over Rev'd and The Rt Rev. over The Rt Rev'd.
    • Reply: This is an area where the MOS ought to be fixed. Coincidentally, someone mentioned this very issue on that MOS section's talk page. Using "Rev." is something Presbyterians do. While Americans being Americans do screw it up here and there, Anglicans worldwide are rather set on The "Rev'd" or "Revd". For instance, in an earlier draft I used the word "pastorate" once and caught hell for it (although it would have been appropriate and unnoticed in the 18th century). JackTheVicar (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • JackTheVicar, I would see nothing wrong with using the term "pastorate" so that editor that gave you hell should learn to be more inclusive. I wonder if "Revd" would work better here; I think it is the apostrophe that makes it stand out. "Rev'd" works for me, but I wanted to make sure it was in keeping with a standard. Perhaps more pressure needs to be applied to the MOS folks to include it. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, alternative captions are suggested but are not required for the images in the articles.

History

  • Consider wiki-linking the first use of Sussex County in the Establishment subsection.
  • The image of the interior of the church is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here. Per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, alternative captions are suggested but are not required.
  • Elizabethtown can be de-linked in the second paragraph of the Establishment subsection as it is used above.
  • The image of the charter is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is suitable for use here. Again, an alt citation is suggested, but not required.
  • The image of Christ Church, seen from across the street, during Winter 1910, is released to the Public Domain. An alt citation is suggested, but not required.
  • In the Current church (1869–present) subsection, the final sentence of the third paragraph needs an inline citation.
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Architecture, furnishings and fittings

  • The red link to Newton Town Plot Historic District can be de-linked in the first paragraph of this section as it is red linked above in the prose.
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Rector

  • Consider de-linking Knowlton Township, New Jersey in the first paragraph of this section.
  • An image of the Christ Church's first parsonage was licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is acceptable for use here.
  • An image of the Thomas Anderson House is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore suitable for use here.
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Comments from Tomandjerry211 (alt)[edit]

First of all, I agree with all of West Virginian's comments, and I have a few others:

  • Why do you need to put the page number outside the cite, when you just can put it in the cite?
    • Reply: That's the way the {{rp}} template (Template:Rp) works for some reason. Unfortunately, it's a compromise since the alternative—using cite templates—offer little flexibility to a user in writing a footnote and I'm not partial to how they format a citation, and the html <ref> citation method doesn't work well with repeated citations to a source that requires different page numbers for the relevant information being cited. the {{rp}} template seems to have been designed to remedy that shortcoming with the <ref> method. The {{sfn}} template is not one I use. As WP:WIAFA doesn't require a specific method, and my use or ref html tags with the rp template is consistent throughout the article and in keeping with the expected use of the rp template, is there an issue?JackTheVicar (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency: "p. 13–14, pp. 23–24", pp. is preferred by many.
    • Fixed & Reply: As Template:Rp says "Do not add "Page", "pp.", etc.—just the numbers." in its instructions, I'm removing all references to p. or pp. in the article. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation for the first note?
  • Why do you have to pipe link to Christ Church (Disambiguation) (which is a redirect) instead of just directly linking to Christ Church.
    • Fixed & Reply: I removed the pipe link to the redirect. I don't know why other than that might have been the page I found when I wrote the article, but I don't remember after all these months. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI For specious reasoning, RussBot keeps changing pipelinks in hatnotes to "x (disambiguation)" even if that page is a redirect to x. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I'm happy with this article. Thanks,Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some of the details appearing in the infobox do not appear to be sourced anywhere in the article (eg. the Director of Music). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Graham Beards: Can we hold off on closing this as the article has been restored? I'm happy to take on the task of the final polishing for FA if the Jack is banned. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a fresh start would be better. The article can be renominated after the bot as run. Under the, unprecedented, circumstances, the customary 14 day waiting period is waived. Graham Beards (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards: The only concern I have is the comments in support of it would be lost on the new one if that was done. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is my decision, sorry. Usually reviewers watchlist articles and return to subsequent FACs. There would not be any problems in your leaving a neutrally-worded reminder on their page should this not be the case. Graham Beards (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Christ_Church,_Newton/archive1&oldid=1085529452"