Talk:Temple Sinai (Oakland, California)

Temple Sinai (Oakland, California) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 8, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 8, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
March 30, 2010	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 16, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Temple Sinai, a Reform synagogue in Oakland, California, grew out of Oakland's Hebrew Benevolent Society in 1875?

Current status: Featured article

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikilinks from Notes to References

I put in links from the Notes section to the References section, as described at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Wikilinks to full references. I found this rather confusing the first time I did it (at Che Guevara) because there are two jumps, from the text to Notes and from Notes to References, but it's not really that confusing when you get used to it. Basically, by putting "<cite id=abcdef> some text </cite>" in the References section, you create an anchor that you can link to. Then, anywhere else in the article you can put "[[#abcdef|some more text]]" and it will jump to where the anchor is. The only reason it's confusing is that this link is then placed within the ref tags, so the link itself gets magically moved down into the Notes section along with everything else within the ref tags. The name of the id doesn't have to begin with "ref", but that's the convention suggested on the "Further considerations" page: "<cite id=refRoss2003>...</cite>" in the References section and "[[#refRoss2003]]" to link to it: first "ref", then name of author, then year. It's easier to edit the references if they follow a convention like that so you can usually just guess what the id is. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Temple Sinai (Oakland, California)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Early years section, "By 1876", "In 1881", "In 1885", "by 1886", and "in 1891" it would be best if there was a comma placed after 1876, 1881, 1885, 1886, 1891. Same thing for the Friedlander era: 1893–1915, Franklin, Coffee and Stern eras: 1917–1965, Broude era: 1966–1989, and Chester era: 1989–present sections.
Check. Also, User:clariosophic makes a good point about "formally"/"formerly" for the First Hebrew Congregation of Oakland, which would have to be fixed. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a good point. I've clarified that now in the text, and added a source backing it up. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I believe I've inserted all the necessary commas now, please let me know if I've missed any. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank Jayjg for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, because I have gone off and passed it to GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

formally First Hebrew Congregation of Oakland

The word formally is confusing and needs clarification. Does it mean officially (if so, say so) or was the intent to say formerly, in which case, originally would be clearer. clariosophic (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The official name of the congregation is First Hebrew Congregation of Oakland, and the current synagogue building is called Temple Sinai, but the unofficial name of the congregation is also Temple Sinai. This is actually quite common, where a congregation's official name might be "Beth Israel congregation", and its synagogue called "Temple Beth Israel", but the two end up being used interchangeably. First Hebrew/Temple Sinai is unusual in that the two names are so completely different, and that almost no-one uses the official name. Anyway, I've added a source and clarified that now. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan or Mississippi

In Note 65, clicking the Mississippi link sends you to the bottom of the page and gets lost. This is probably caused by confusion between Temple Beth Israel (Jackson, Michigan) and Beth Israel Congregation (Jackson, Mississippi). Art LaPella (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problem was that the span was missing the class="citation" qualifier, but I've fixed it now, and also fixed the erroneous mention of Mississippi. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation

The first sentence does not make it clear for an outsider what the Temple Sinai is. It rests heavily on the word congregation. This word is not linked. If it was, the link would be poor help. It is a disambiguation page. The best alternative is qahal, but that article describes an ancent organisational form. --Ettrig (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point, but I've gotten conflicting advice on that subject over the years, depending on the article, and on the GA or FA reviewer. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Country

I added 'United States' to the location - as I said in my edit summary I found it incredible that the country was not mentioned in a featured article, apart from in the infobox. User:SlimVirgin reverted me, saying 'I think people know where California is' in his/her edit summary. This is symptomatic of a HUGE problem in Wikipedia. We are writing an encyclopaedia for an international audience, not just a US one, and we should not assume that everyone will know where California is, or make them click on a link to find out.

Here's a test: click on 'Random article' and see how many of the articles about non-US countries mention the country, and how many US ones do. I have done this test repeatedly - it averages out at about 81% non-US articles mentioning their country, and 19% of US ones. This reflects the parochialism and US-centrism of US editors - they don't think they need to add the country because they believe that is is self-evident, even when they are dealing with Knobfart, Wyoming (pop 23). I can't think of a reputable paper encyclopaedia that would omit as basic a piece of information as the country in which the subject of the article is located. 86.147.162.198 (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Was going to do the same when I saw it on the main page. Yes, it's definitely a problem. There should be a wikilink on the country name also. Night w (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't much say in this, perhaps except that using name of the country is directly opposed to proper naming convention of United States locales. There are perhaps other meanings of California in the world, but globally for most people California simply means California, without any need to disambiguate or specificate. --ja_62 ^(t|c) 16:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the United States is required, since California is an extremely well-known state, both inside and outside the United States. And, as ja 62 points out above, it also contradicts our naming conventions. In any event, it certainly doesn't need to be linked: see Wikipedia:OVERLINK#What generally should not be linked. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What?? As the anon editor has pointed out, it's the most basic piece of information for the reader. Simply omitting the name of the country on the grounds that "most people will know" is not only extremely presumptuous, it's just bad editing for an international audience. What about the reader that doesn't know? Or are you saying that everybody knows? What an assumption. And those conventions you've cited are for page titles, or in instances where the country has already been specified. Or is it also correct to omit "Argentina" from the San Isidro Cathedral page, according to the same conventions? Night w (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Temple Sinai, Oakland, California

The article was recently moved to Temple Sinai, Oakland, California. I've restored it to Temple Sinai (Oakland, California), as the latter is the standard for disambiguation, particularly of synagogues. 18:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Temple Sinai (Oakland, California). 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Temple Sinai (Oakland, California). 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/20100417042041/http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_rabbi17.3c7dc81.html to http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_rabbi17.3c7dc81.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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]