Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao/archive3

Truthkeeper88

Comment: Was searching for information on the sign, and easily found this information about background of the Dutch missionaries to the area during the Boxer Rebellion. Perhaps consider adding to the article? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but I would point out that it does in fact discuss the Vicariate Apostolic and the Shandung mission. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per 1b and 1c. From a cursory Google search I learned information that seems to be lacking in this article. For example, the name of the original German architect, information about the bell tower and the bells, that the church is a tourist attraction (the numbers of tourists annually are available). Also, information about why the Dutch missionaries were in the region seems relevant, as well as the style in which the Germans rebuilt the village. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently an architect named Pepieruch was involved at some point. — Truthkeeper88 — continues after insertion below
• The bells are cast from bronze — Truthkeeper88 — continues after insertion below

My issue is that information such as this is easily found and would be useful in the article. Unless of course Frommer's is not reliable because of the concerns regarding sources you've raised above. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in this case, Frommer's is not a reliable source, for a number of reasons: 1) The author didn't figure out the Pepieruch issue; 2) The author got the dates of construction wrong; and 3) there is no "new stained glass." They didn't have the technology to produce stained glass when they rebuilt the cathedral. It is regular glass that has been painted over. So I'm not inclined to include Frommer's as a source on the bells, because anyone checking that source would be confused by all the bad information which conflicts with the good information in the article. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• The SVD was established in Holland (hence Dutch) - why? — Truthkeeper88 — continues after insertion below
• How did the "town-scape of Qingdao" change such that it no longer supported the original design? — Truthkeeper88 — continues after insertion below

The same reason some say you shouldn't wear navy blue with black: these are questions of aesthetics. I have sources saying the design changed because the townscape changed. I don't have sources that are more specific than that, an neither do you. I know this because I looked for this information extensively both online and in print (in English and in Chinese) following a challenge about it in the first FAC. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There are sources that describe the Bavarian architecture of the old-town - I wondered whether that had anything to do with the change in style as Bavarian churches tend to have a more rounded type of design. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This sentence perhaps indicates the church might have been in keeping with the Bavarian style of the town: The changes are evident in drawings published before completion of construction, which show the roofs of the towers as bell-shaped. However, the roofs of the completed structure were changed to spires. as Bavarian churches have bell-shaped towers. I'm quite aware the church is neo-Romanesque. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you lived in the town but I think a little more can be eked out from the sources. And yes, the sources I've seen were reliable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out information that was quite easy to find, regarding architect (not contractor), history/background of the SVG, and the general architecture of the town, all from reliable sources and not currently in the article. Have no interest in arguing. Will not continue with the review. Thanks Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• This book (written in English and German) has an extremely limited snippet view about the church. Missing from the article is the information about the facade, the adjacent chapel and the printshop - however, relying on a snippet view of a Google book isn't the best manner to get at the sources. I suspect the book includes additional useful information. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• You've cited page 248 but the information (again the very little that is gleaned from a snippet view) on page 250 is more extensive. I can't actually find information in the article about the adjacent chapel and printshop. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Truthkeeper88, have the subsequent edits to the article, and subsequent review, resolved your concerns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't been following the page after I unwatched it on June 15th. Noticed it was still in the queue today and had become huge, so moved my comments to unclog. This will take a little time to comb through and I'm busy today - short answer I don't know. I'll look as soon as I have time, but might not be until tonight or tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User: Noraft comment moved from User:Truthkeeper88 talkpage:
I don't think it is particularly fair for you to post an objection on the review page, then move my response refuting that objection to the talk page. I think you should move it all, or none. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Until I've reviewed the changes to the article my opinion is unchanged. I unwatched the page and the article and haven't been keeping up, so that will take a bit of time that I don't have at the moment. It's easier for the delegates to read an unclogged page. If you feel I've done this incorrectly ask one of the FAC delegates how best to refactor the page. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about your opinion, which you've preserved on the review page. I'm talking about my opinion, refuting yours, which you've moved, which makes it look to anyone reviewing that page like I didn't respond. If the situation were reversed, would you be okay with that? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as there is a link on the main FAC page, this is preferable for the FAC delegates, nominator and other reviewers. Clogged FACs get ignored, which results in a restart and another few weeks at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How do an extra couple paragraphs added to a 9,000 word FAC make it more "clogged"? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to SandyGeorgia's query, more comprehensive development of the topic and background is required, in my view. Suggestions and sources listed below. Also, found MoS and other errors, but will add those later.

Background

• Would like to see some background prior to the Unequal Treaty
• "so-called Unequal treaty" > suggest dropping the adjective
• If Germans were in Qingdao as result of the Unequal Treaty, suggest being explicit right away
  • That depends on how you mean. The Germans militarily occupied the area, then forced the concession. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I followed the part about about the concession, but as a reader am confused as to when the occupation began or why. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think you understood my answer. I'll say it a different way: Germans were not in Qingdao as a result of their treaty with China. The treaty with China occurred as a result of the Germans being in Qingdao. This is already explicitly stated in the article: "Subsequently, German troops seized and occupied the fortification.[2] China conceded the area to Germany the following year, and the Jiaozhou Bay concession, as it became known, existed from 1898 to 1914." ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
        • You've identified the problem. I did not understand your answer nor do I see in the article when the German presence began in the area. For those who don't know, it seems important to explain. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
          • I just quoted it to you in my last reply. See where it says "German troops seized and occupied the fortification"? That's when Germany occupied (i.e. when the German presence began). Then it says "China conceded the area to Germany the following year, and the Jiaozhou Bay concession, as it became known, existed from 1898 to 1914." Both those things are already in the article. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
            • Please bear with me, because I come to this as reader who is unfamiliar with the history, and if I find it confusing, others will as well. Why were German troops in China? What brought them there? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Everything you are asking about appears to me to be stated in the article: "In 1891 the Qing government decided to make Qingdao (commonly spelled "Tsingtao" until well into the 20th century) defensible to naval attack and began to improve the existing fortifications of the town. German naval officials observed and reported on this Chinese activity during a formal survey of Kiautschou Bay in May 1897 ("Jiaozhou" was formerly romanized as Kiaochow, Kiauchau or Kiao-Chau in English and Kiautschou in German). Subsequently, German troops seized and occupied the fortification." ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• The source used in this section - By Order of the Kaiser - explains on page 137 that the Germans wanted a naval base in China in order to establish and protect a trading area. A few pages later is explained that the German navy (after considering other areas) focused on southern Shandung in order to protect missionaries in the area. So the answer is - they wanted to establish themselves in China and the presence of the missionaries brought them to Shandung. I'd suggest adding to the article for context per WP:PCR. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Sentence beginning: The so-called Markstrasse... is a floating quotation, best avoided. Suggest attributing to the brewer who made the observation, and adding to the section that the newly built town was in European style.
  • It wasn't the brewer who made the observation, it was the author. Have added an attribution to the article, and a line about European style. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Too bad it wasn't the brewer - it would have made a nicer attribution and tied in the brewery all at the same time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Its okay. Gave me a chance to establish that the author is a subject matter expert and not just some amateur historian (that's me). ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Bartels built a temporary church (chapel) and hospital in Deutscher Kulturimperialismus in China (p. 106) The text is in German, but I would be happy to provide a translation. The chapel was used until 1902. Suggest incorporating in the article
  • I would love a translation, thank you. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Am having User:Bamse verify the translation. When done, will post to the article talkpage.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Is the cathedral located where the mission hall was? If so, what happened to the mission hall? Article has image of mission hall without explanation as to its fate. Maybe expanding the caption for the mission hall image would be sufficient.
• Did the early congregation worship at the mission hall or at another church? Apparently an interdenominational church was built for all Europeans called Christ Church according to Tsingtau.org Another German source. Happy to translate. Suggest adding to the article.
  • The church was supposed to be interdenominational, but according to the source, it was rejected by the SVD who built their own church. Would you like me to add that fact to the article?
    • If a catholic church preceded the cathedral, then yes, I do think it's relevant to the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
      • The mission hall is the Catholic church that preceded the cathedral, and it is mentioned. (That's what I meant when I said they built their own church). ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Answer to your initial question is: The early congregation worshipped at the mission hall. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 19:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• St. Emil vs. St. Michael: both fascinating and confusing that the church is called St. Emil in some sources. Nontheless, Collapsing and Reconstructing of Building Language Reflection on Development and Actuality of the Traditional European Architecture in Qingdao City (p. 92) has additional information about the St. Emil in Qingdao. As the article admits St. Michaels is also known as St. Emil, suggest adding the information.
  • It happened because when transliterated into Chinese, Michael and Emil each have three characters: Mi-ke-er and E-mi-er. Both names have two characters in common (mi and er). Someone at some point was translating the Chinese name for Michael into English, and made a mistake. That kind of mistake tends to get repeated. To further compound the confusion, today they don't use Mi-ke-er, but Ma-ke-er. This is probably because a hundred years ago they were translating from a European language, or Latin, where the name for Michael is pronounced with a Mi sound, like Miguel (Spanish/Portuguese), Michele (Italian), Michaeli (Latin), etc, so at the time that made more sense. With the rise of English as a lingua franca, now they're transliterating it as Ma as that sounds closer to a Chinese ear ("My" being made by combining ma and i: mai). This is all WP:OR so I can't put it in the article, alas (was in before, but was challenged, so I had to remove it). ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I meant to have a look at the description of the cathedral in the document, and determine whether it's relevant to the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I know what you meant. I just thought you might be interested to know why the issue happened. There are a couple relevant pieces of information, but most of it is already included in the article, from other sources. There is a description of the buildings around the cathedral, but 1) it is very subjective (and I don't agree with some of the author's observations) 2) the author is a linguist, and his opinions about the aesthetics of the architecture are not grounded in any academic training or special expertise and 3) the entire article appears to be a machine translation of a Chinese document. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Took another look at your source. "St. Michael's" does not appear in it. It simply says that it is called St. Emil's, which is (as we know) incorrect. It constantly refers to it as "Catholic Church," which also tells me this is a machine translation, as that's what Chinese locals call St. Michael's Cathedral: simply "Catholic Church," since it is the only Catholic church in town. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 19:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
          • The description that the cathedral dominated the skyline after the completion, and opinion of size is more charitable than Torsten, and could be used as a counterpoint, but will defer to your judgement. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• St. Michael was the name of SVD mission house in Steyl per this source The history of the relations between the Low Countries and China.(p 273)
  • I saw that...is it important? If so, how and where should it be added to this article? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Suggest a little development of the SVD in the Kulturkampf section > moved from Germany to Holland and built mission house named St. Micheals and so on. This establishes information about SVD for readers who are unfamiliar, and sets up explanation of cathedral name later in the article. The chapter titled Shandong Missions and the Dutch Connection beginning page 271, gives a good history of the SVD (and the notes include sources that may or may not be useful). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Names of ecclesiastical divisions in Qingdao available in:The history of the relations between the Low Countries and China (p. 298)
  • I didn't see anything about ecclesiastical divisions in Qingdao on page 298. Under a prefecture, vicariate, or diocese, generally the only ecclesiastical divisions are deaneries and parishes. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Can live without this information. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• For people who don't know the area, I think it's important to explain that the cathedral is no longer in the center of the city - that a newer more modern city has been built away from the older European settlement - if in fact that's the case. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That IS the case. Shinan District was the center at the time, now it is on the south side. Will have to look for a source for that, or else provide a map. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected. Shinan is bigger than I realized. The cathedral is on the east side of Shinan, and skyscrapers exist both to the east and west of it, so nothing special to report. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 07:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources and MoS

• This sentence: The changes are evident in drawings published before completion of construction, which show the roofs of the towers as bell-shaped. However, the roofs of the completed structure were changed to spires. Construction was finished in 1934, and the cathedral was consecrated on October 28 that year. > can't find it in the reference, currently ref 13
• Sentence that plans to build St. Michael stopped because of WWI is lacking a source.
• The sentence that the Japanese reoccupied Qingdao threw me. When was the first occupation > check
• This sentence is hard to get through, suggest recasting: During the Civil War period (1946–1949), missionaries in Shandong Province experienced growing tensions with the communists, spurring a missionary in Shandong, Father Augustin Olbert, SVD who was appointed Bishop of Qingdao two years later, to write:
• Check communist/communism for consistency - some appear to be lowercase, some uppercase
• Suggest recasting this phrase: contempt for religion
  • Why? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • A word such as repudiate is more accurate.
    • I think repudiate is less accurate. Repudiate means "To reject the truth or validity of something; to deny." I think Marx (and Mao moreso) was contemptuous of religion. When Marx said "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes," when Mao said "Religion is poison," they weren't simply denying their validity. Contempt is defined as "The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn." The Communists clearly scorned religion. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 18:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Another floating quotation here, needs a tagline: "The witness of Bishop Gong Pinmei of Shanghai and many others who chose jail, labor camps, and even death for the sake of their faith and their loyalty to the pope would sustain countless people in the years ahead."
• Why three sources for three men falling to death? Is it controversial?
• Mentions bells, but no citation. Am still not clear why Frommer's isn't RS and LonelyPlanet is.
  • Fixed citation. Because Frommer's description is riddled with errors. I pointed them out to you before. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Explain who Warner Torsten, and introduce the title of his book.
  • I don't know who he is. Regarding the title, it was in there before and someone at FAC had me take it out. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a shame. As the author of German Architecture in China: Architectural Transfer it would be nice to add the title of the book after his name. I'll leave this to you to decide.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Will sneak it back in and see if I'm struck by a bolt of lightning. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 19:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take the blame. It will make the intro to the big block quote better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Haven't a clue what a pier is in a church - does a link exist? Consider linking arch as well, though different types of arches exist?
• This sentence needs a citation: According to Lonely Planet, "The interior is splendid, with white walls, gold piping...and a marvellously painted apse."
• Suggest adding Frommer's view that interior is "tacky"
  • My previously stated opposition to Frommer's stands. Especially because one can see from the interior photos the paint job isn't tacky. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Might have been okay to combine the two sources in a sentence that the interior is described as variously as "splendid" or "tacky". Since we can't see it, we have to rely on what the sources tell us. Nonetheless, I'll defer to your judgement here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Is 700,000 euros standard, or better to use the euro symbol? If not, shouldn't euro be linked?
• Why the citation directly after mention of three statues of Jesus Christ rather than after the description?
• Check that titles of books are properly capitalized.
• Some refs end with periods and others don't. Seems to have something to do with the templates - am not certain Dabomb's script eliminated all the unused parameters. Suggest doing so manually. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Support : satisfied with the changes. Thanks for the hard work. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Access

Please see WP:ACCESS regarding order of items in the lead (I changed this once, but it was changed back). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:ACCESS. Didn't see anything about it. But that did lead me to Wikipedia:Lead section#Elements of the lead, which said: "the lead section may contain optional elements presented in the following order: disambiguation links (dablinks), maintenance tags, infoboxes, images, navigational boxes (navigational templates), introductory text, and table of contents, moving to the heading of the first section." It doesn't say anything about elements such as the {{chinesetext}} tag. However, in the next section, it explains the rationale for the order of each element. The rationale for the first element (disambiguation links) is: "Disambiguation links should be the first elements of the page, before any maintenance tags, infobox or image; if a reader has reached the wrong page, they typically want to know that first. Text-only browsers and screen readers present the page sequentially." I think that rationale would apply to {{chinesetext}} as well. If a reader is seeing strange characters, they typically will want to know why. The infobox contains chinese characters, so considering that text only browsers and screen readers present the page sequentially, the notice should come before the infobox. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese text is a template-- it goes after the infobox. Please take this up on the talk page of WP:ACCESS, where editors with screenreaders can opine (I don't have one, so I can't expound, but FAs must comply with guidelines, and ACCESS is an important one). Everything else I raised looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Enforcing a rule for the rule's sake without considering the why is dogmatic. Further, the above order in Wikipedia:Lead section#Elements of the lead doesn't mention templates. Please show me something that says all templates must go after the infobox. I see nothing about it in WP:ACCESS. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

See "template" in the text you quoted. Again, please raise your questions at the talk page of WP:ACCESS, where editors with screen readers can sort this-- they know better than I do, and they can tell you if the template causes a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say "template" in the text I quoted. It says "navigational templates" and there's nothing navigational about {{Chinesetext}}. I'm not taking this to WP:ACCESS (yet), because it doesn't matter what the folks with screen readers think (yet), because the guideline you've cited for why we should move the template doesn't say anything about templates. If you can show me something that says a template like {{Chinesetext}} should follow an infobox, then I'll move it. If you can show me that WP:ACCESS covers this, I'll go to WP:ACCESS and ask about it. Sandy, just think about it (from your "sighted" perspective, assuming you use a regular browser like me). If your computer didn't support Chinese characters, would you rather see a screen with question marks, then after scrolling a bit, see a note that says why, or would you rather see the note first, then know what the question marks were when you saw them? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is why your FAC is so long; rather than arguing with reviewers, you should just go to the source. The absence of specific guidance on the template-- when templates are never before infoboxes-- is exactly what needs to be sorted. I'll post on WT:ACCESS myself-- please don't extend this FAC any more unnecessarily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a long FAC. Nobody should accept answers they don't agree with; consensus comes from debate. And as you can see from the FAC, a good portion of the things I push back on (which really aren't proportionally very many), get dropped as objections. And I already posted at WT:ACCESS. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty wrong with a long FAC; it discourages review, and clogs the page. Further, you wasted time, parked a big long discussion here that might have been viewed by others over there, where the discussion belongs, and that was easily resolved in the right place. Please stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. A long FAC means people are collaborating. Unless it is one guy talking to him/herself; then there's a whole other problem. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the "others over there" that might have viewed this "big long discussion," better they start fresh and unbiased, which is why I posited the question to them neutrally. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)