Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurva Synagogue/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 not promoted by Karanacs 14:39, 16 March 2010 [1].

Hurva Synagogue[edit]

Hurva Synagogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Chesdovi (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because it has attained GA status and I would like it to feature on the main page, in time for the synagogues dedication, on 15 March 2010. Chesdovi (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it is now March 7; there is little chance of this FAC being promoted in time for scheduling for March 15, which is only eight days away, and will probably be scheduled within five days, and there is already a request for March 15 at WP:TFA/R. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alt text good now. Oppose. Images lack alt text, as required by FA criterion 3. See WP:ALT for advice on alt text. No dab links; external links are functional. Ucucha 01:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping that the alt text I have added is sufficient. (Have removed gallery). Chesdovi (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The lead image still lacks alt text; I have inserted the infobox parameter where it is added. The image in Template:Yishuv haYashan also needs alt text. Much of the alt text that is there is insufficient. Alt text should be verifiable to a non-expert from the image alone, but a non-expert like me cannot verify from only looking at File:Hurva sideview.jpg that this is the northern side of Hurva Synagogue. Instead, describe what the northern side looks like. Someone (Eubulides?) said that alt text should be written as if you were describing the appearance of the image over the telephone. WP:ALT and The Avery Coonley School have some good examples of alt text for buildings. Ucucha 03:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted to satisfy these requirements. Chesdovi (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looking great. Ucucha 20:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Those section headers are poorly chosen. They should not start with the years (as this results in invalid HTML: see Help:Markup validation and the validator output). More generally, the section headers indicate that this article is really about the history of the Hurva Synagogue, not the Hurva Synagogue itself: almost all of the text is about its history, and almost none of the text is about the actual Hurva Synagogue. I suggest that the article be renamed to something like History of the Hurva Synagogue. Eubulides (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have chnaged the section headers to comply with Markup validation. I think all similar articles about such buildings are generally about the historic aspect, compare: Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes. As the new synagogue is still being completed, there is little that can be added about the actual synagogue as it currently stands. Chesdovi (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the section headers valid, but I'm afraid they're still too long and suggest a lack of perspective or organization. The Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes article is primarily about a congregation but this article is about a building; so better examples would be St. Peter's Basilica, Stanford Memorial Church, and Tomb of Antipope John XXIII, all of which have history sections, some quite extensive, but none of which consist almost entirely of history, and all of which (rightly) focus on the architecture of the building, something greatly lacking here. Eubulides (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is so because the building in its current form is not yet completed and it would not be possible to provide a detailed account of the buildings architectureal design or of its influence and staff, etc. This being the case, your previous suggestion of renaming may make sense. Chesdovi (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the introduction. The introductory sentence ought to state what the object of the article is rather than the first stage of it's history.

The Hurva Synagogue, (Hebrew: ‎ בית הכנסת החורבה, translit: Beit ha-Knesset ha-Hurba), also known as Hurvat Rabbi Yehudah he-Hasid, (trans. Ruin of Rabbi Judah the Pious) located in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem was for centuries the site of Jerusalem's main Ashkenazi synagogue. In 1864, a new synagogue officially consecrated Beis Yaakov Synagogue was erected at the same site by the Perushim community.[4]

I suggest something like:

Hurva Synagogue (other names as appropriate) is the name of a succession of buildings located at a particular site within the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. Although perhaps dating from as early as (date?), the site of Hurva Synagogue (other names as appropriate) was the location of Jerusalem's main Ashkenazi Synagogue from (date 1300s)..... cont.
The advantage of this leading sentence is that it encompasses the whole potted history which follows from the most ancient to the present day. Amandajm (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to include earlier history. Chesdovi (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose slashed —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC) - one external link needs attention. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done! Chesdovi (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unsigned oppose, will someone please go back through the edit history and attach an unsigned template to this oppose so I can tell to whom it belongs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Dana for adding my name. Sorry SG, I had additional comments below and didn't think I needed to sign here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I slashed my oppose, but I still think that there are a few issues with prose. Is there any chance of hooking a copyeditor to take at least a quick run through it? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, note that I moved my resolved concerns to the talk page. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am looking through the article now and making prose and MOS changes as I go. Please revert me if I accidentally change the meaning. I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section named Ashkenazim in Jerusalem: 13th-century is misnamed as it mentions material from 2nd cent AD. I'd rename this Antecedents, Early years or Background actually.
Done! Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, has there been any archaeological evidence of early occupation? Or lack of it? Any digs etc.
Done! Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good work....err...does it say whether they found any evidence of places of worship in the archaeological digs at all? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of an ancient synagogue, but added that Jewish ritual baths were found beneath the surface dating from 1st-century. Chesdovi (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I think of it, if you name it Background, you can include details such as specific location (not mentioned elsewhere in the article) - i.e. where it is within the Jewish Quarter of the old city etc.
Done! Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the winter of 1700, a group of around 500 Ashkenazim led by Rabbi Judah he-Hasid arrived from Europe - for the cost of almost no extra words, you can clarify where in Europe they came from (take your pick, "Central Europe", "Poland" via xxx, whatever)
he-Hasid set out from the Polish town of Shidlitz, near Grodna. He then travelled to Russia, Hungary, Germany, Austria and Italy before setting sail for Palestine. He collected followers as he went. Some sources say he had recruited 1,300 people, but 500 died along the way. I was not sure if all this was needed and how it could be condensed if relevant. Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thereafter, the Ashkenazim established their own synagogue in Der Ashkenaz - any clarification or embellishment of what this is would be helpful - is it a compound with a temple within it? Funny that it was right next door to the Ramban synagogue.
Der Ashkenz simply means the Ashkenazic Compound, s coutryard consisting of dwellings for the Ashkenazic Jews. It is curious that the Rambam synagogue was so closeby. (You will see it today attached directly to the south wall of the Hurva Synagogue!) That being said, some researchers do question whether the Rambamsynagogue was in fact situated a few hundred metres away in another location. I have reworded the para. to clarify Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This heading, Construction by the followers of Judah he-Hasid: 1700s, is too long. I'd change it to something like he-Hasid and aftermath.
Done! Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two successive missions in 1820 and 1821 to obtain the firman from the sultan's court failed due to "external factors." - okay, I'm curious. what does it mean? Or if no info just leave out the "external factors", as it doesn't help.
The source only mentioned "external factors", so I will remove it Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Construction of a new synagogue: 1857–64, it isn't clear what the synagogue was actually called (unless I am missing something) - was it the called the Hurva synagogue at this time? In which case I'd just call this section Construction as we're talking about the (first) construction of the subject.
I have changed this and added some words, hopfully clarifying this Chesdovi (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, better, but I stuck in a couple more just to stamp it, as it wasn't clear for someone unfamiliar with the subject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do the sources note what stone it was made of?
Not seen. Probably Meleke Chesdovi (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's frustrating when you know what something is or liekyl to be but can't find a reliable source...we've all been there.. :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The planners and architects involved in developing the area were all secular. - I must say, I find this construction unusual (i.e. the use of the word secular thus). I am pondering on rewording but nothing is leaping out at me.
Will think about this one... Chesdovi (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted unbiased reword. Chesdovi (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to a prophesy made by the Vilna Gaon, the synagogue's third completion will lead to construction of the Third Temple - this sentence sorta sticks out at the bottom. Given the importance of the building, is tehre enough info to construct a section at the bottom on Culture and Tradition" (or "folklore/religious importance"?) - this would have that sentence in it - also needs information on why this building might be so iconic and spiritually important etc. Any other anecdotes/prophecies/folklore/traditions/etc. can go here.
I would love to add a folklore section; I need material though! I agree this last sentence is not placed well. I knew of this bit of infomation, but I did not add it; another editor did. It was a quote from a newspaper. Where the original quote is printed, I would like to know myself! If it cannot be tucked in somewher, by all means remove it. Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...I'd recommend posting a request on the relevant wikiprojects - maybe someone has some dead-tree information (i.e. a book) with some extra material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed quote with request added to talk page. Chesdovi (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consistency is good, but consistent confusion of modifiers is confusing. For example:

Lead. ...is a historic synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, which has been destroyed and rebuilt several times. as it was written initially, without the comma, The old City of Jerusalem had been destroyed and rebuilt several times. Regardless of whether or not this is the case, do you mean the synagogue, the Jewish Quarter, or the Old City.  ?
First section: By the 13th century, the area had become a courtyard for the Ashkenazic community of Jerusalem[9] known as Der Ashkenaz (the Ashkenazic Compound)... The Ashkenazic community known as the Ashkenazic Compound? No, doesn't this refer to the courtyard? --> by the 13th century, the area had become a courtyard, known as Der Ashkenaz (the Ashkenazic Compound, for the Ashkenazic community in Jerusalem.
...Abraham in 1488 who described a large courtyard containing many houses for exclusive .... Abraham who, in 1488, described... Or, even better, In 1488, .....Abraham described....
repetitiveness: the debts were still outstanding and had not been repaid.

These are problems throughout -- perhaps another copy edit? I'm willing to support re content etc., but prose issues are a barrier. It's very confusing to read. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address the concerns you highlighted. Chesdovi (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia sites are hosted in the USA, therefore images we host must be in the public domain in the USA. However, the following images:

are still copyrighted in the USA. Also,

Other images seem fine.

Oppose pending resolution of these matters. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the first image (File:Hurva synagogue.jpg) be PD because 1939 + 50 = 1990, before the 1 January 1996 magic date set by the URAA? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just doesn't look like an FA. It lost me with the lead; I realize the nature of the subject is confusing, but the lead should not only make sense after reading everything else. It should be longer and clearer. The stuff in the lead about the earliest history, or stories, is not developed. It's unfortunate the bits about Arab villainy are only referenced to newspapers & a blog page. For an article on a building, or several, the architectural info is not FA standard. Some of the vocabulary here is not right: "but this was later replaced with a flat platform covered with expensive marble plates." - "slabs" or nothing, but not plates I think. Were the four animals "drawings", I wonder? "Fresco not linked. The photo captioned "Eastern facade" does not show a facade. Many of the pictures are fixed very small, but there are large stretches with no pictures; they should be spread around more. The prose is too rambling, and not always clear. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2010 (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/Hurva_Synagogue/archive1&oldid=1078801281"