Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/archive1

List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

After some informal peer review - submitting for review. I guess you could call this a self nomination, since I have been copyediting the intro and have been one of the contributors; however, as you can see the list itself was created by many others. --Trödel 15:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the current discussion on possibly dramatically changing the format for this list - I would like to hold the remainder of this discussion in abeyance until those discussions are concluded. During this time I hope that the percentage of temples with pictures will increase. Since there is no significant oppostion to its Featured status - I would think that reopening this candidate page would be appropriate; however if it is not - please close this request as withdrawn pending changes, and I will open a new candidate page once the discusions are concluded.

I sincerely thank all those that reviewed the list - the feedback was especially helpful and in some ways drove the evaluation of the column format as the best way to present the information. --Trödel 03:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks exemplary to me. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good list. Maybe you could fit somewhere the area of the temples in square meters as well? -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 12:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two of these images have copyright problems. Image:Konahawaiitemple.jpg is fair use only and Image:LDS Temple-Sacramento.jpg is oddly licensed. Rmhermen 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning these, I will take care of these copyright issues. Since the Sacramento temple was so new and had just been dedicated we were using the press kit release photo pending acquistion of free license versions. I have received a cc-by-sa license for 2 overhead shots of the Sacramento Temple (one of which was used in the Sacramento Bee article) and have a requests out for permission for some front shots. The Kona temple will be properly licensed or removed. --Trödel 19:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jo e I 11:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Firstly, well done for all the work you've done on rescuing a list that was destined for the deletion bin. The discussion on the talk page shows collaboration and preparation that is indeed exemplary. However, I think it still needs a bit of work:

The introduction is too long. Criteria 4 says "a lead section where appropriate, which is brief but sufficient to summarize the nature of the list". The Temple (Mormonism) article covers this ground, is already comprehensive, and has a history section too. I don't see why it needs covered twice. Therefore I suggest this is radically reduced and the content merged into the other article where appropriate.
I'm not convinced a monolithic chronologically ordered list is particularly useful to the reader. The LDS.org site has three groupings: chronological, geographical and alphabetical. The latter can be done by a category. If Wikipedia is going to have one good list, then I think geographical is the most useful. It is hard to do the map thing but what about sections per continent, then ordered by country/city. The US section will probably need sub-sections per state. This would allow a table-of-contents and also a natural grouping for the table headers, rather than the arbitrary repetition every six at present.
What is the reference for the size?
What is the reference for the style? If you have none, and are just going by the photo, then there may be a risk of Original Research here if descriptions of style could be regarded as opinion or judgement.
Criteria 1 says "Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet." (my italics). Since the LDS site is rather well done, you have to work hard to achieve this. A bare list isn't going to do it for me. You've obviously decided on the table-style that has a place for a thumbnail photo for each entry. This style can be seen to full effect on the featured lists List of largest suspension bridges and List of Anuran families. An alternative is to have a more compact row but with pictures here and there: perhaps one or two per continent? So, I'm going to be hard and say that I'd really like you to have a much, much higher ratio of pictures to blanks if you are going for this style. If you can find (ask for) more pictures (with suitable copyright) that are as good as the current lot, then it really will be a special list.
I think that the temples under construction may be better listed on the talk page and moved onto the main page as and when they are finished/dedicated. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball.

Regards, Colin°^Talk 15:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely agree with all your reasons to oppose, but right now I don't have too much time to elaborate. At the moment I'll just say that if the construction of the temples has started already, then it would be fair game to include in the list since contruction would be expected to be finished at some point. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 19:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Some immediate comments below - will address others later:

I would like to get some more feedback on the intro (this was one of my concerns while editing it all from Temple (Mormonism) - as I have had very little input. I do think the history section is different than that page focusing on the slow start, and development of the smaller standardized design temples. There have been several comments on the talk page about dedication information. I would be ok removing this and putting it on the line below the dedication date in the table. The concern expressed on the talk page is that 67% of the temples would have Gordon B. Hinckley.
A geographical based order has been started at List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by geographic region - I think there is room for both lists - the list here, although somewhat duplicative of the lds site is significantly more comprehensive in the following: bringing together structure to a group of articles on wikipedia, including dedication date and size which are not easy to compare on existing lists available on the internet (order is already there as you mention).
The sizes come from either the Church Almanac or ldschurchtemples.com or lds.org - I thought it was too much to identify the source of each - since they sources are indicated in the reference section.
Style: frankly, I don't know as I haven't added that info.
I agree on the need for more pictures. Many have been working on getting GFDL or a cc license accepted at commons - these will be coming over time. I hope there pictures we have thus far are sufficient to exemplify our best work. I have identified a person who is willing to scan his pics and properly license them, but it is not one of his top priorities (and he is about 2000 mi from me). He has photographed about 75% of the temples in the US and Canada.
I see temples under construction as more of a current event. The announcement and status are well documented - so I think it is not predicting events but reporting the current construction status - it is also one of the things that is not well documented on lds.org - current status, lawsuits trying to stop the construction, etc.

Again thx for the feedback --Trödel 19:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my concerns have been addressed and I may well be wrong about the "under construction" issue. The geographic version has the potential to be my prefered one. The "style" remains without references and less than 25% of the entries have pictures. The notes cell wastes space – perhaps lettered footnotes can be used instead (see [List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon]). I think that featured material has to appear to be a finished work (even though we all keep tweaking and adding). This one doesn't. Since that's not an explicit criteria for FL, I'll withdraw my opposition. Colin°^Talk 23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent stuff. Some suggestions, though - perhaps the table could be split into time categories with headings, with roughly equal number in each: for example, Dedicated before 1900, 1900-1969, 1970-79, 1980-84, 1985-1989, 1990-1998, 1999, 2000 (busy years!), 2001-2002, 2003 and later, Under construction, Announced (some % widths for the columns would need to be specified to keep them consistent). The first two sections do seem a little excessive - can any be trimmed and merged elsewhere? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on suggestions[edit]

Categorization This has begun and right now it is in not the best shape - but I wanted to give the regular editors an opportunity to comment/object to the use of the status as an organizational feature rather than a column. Also I put the year in the left two columns of the line with the column headings - I am not sure if I like that better or a complete row heading. Finally, I used the color scheme for the headings that is consistent with the color scheme on other LDS pages like {{LDS}}, {{LDSInfobox}}, etc. --Trödel 22:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok categorization is finished --Trödel 03:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section I have completely rewritten the lead section - I think it is still very informative, but about half the length (425 words instead of 815). Please comment --Trödel 01:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues Complete - all images are "free" --Trödel 03:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is looking good. Well done. FWIW, I would re-enable the TOC. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked headings a little, adding a history section, and putting back the TOC. Is that alright? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me - thx for the help --Trödel 17:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]