Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia)/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 promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2015 [1].

Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia)

[edit]
Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a comprehensive illustration of the history and architecture of a 19th-century church building, which houses a congregation founded in the 18th-century. The property is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I am eager to solicit and incorporate the input and guidance of other FAC editors and administrators. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – very good piece of work; however, I have got a few things. Could you define "Simple" for me in the alt text of the main image? "Hebron Church was founded in 1786 as Great Capon Church" – do you think that Great Capon Church should be in bold as from the sentence I assume it is its original "name". Also, could you archive two links in beige (not quite sure if beige or..) here? Additionally there are quite a few MOS:DASH violations in titles of references. -- Frankie talk 19:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FrB.TG, thank you for taking the time to engage in this FAC review. I've actually removed "simple" in favor of rendering the alt caption as: "The main façade of the church with two white doors and upper windows." I've also added "Great Capon Church" to the first sentence of the lede as an alternative name of the church. I had trouble archiving the two links before with Internet Archive, but I had success archiving both links with Webcite. I've also added the en dash to titles with year dates in them. Please let me know if you see anything else in the meantime, and thank you for your support. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have a particular interest in historical churches, particularly those established by German immigrants to the United States. I seldom see one so well written me. I am seriously impressed by this article. — Maile (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Review details from Maile — Maile (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Review from Maile
  • Really well-done, professional level quality
  • Stable, no edit wars, article created by West Virginian with only minor edits by others
  • Lead and layout are good, with a nice flow from one section to the next
  • Prose and historical details are most impressive throughout the article
  • Architecture and function (past and present) of the church are finely detailed and well-sourced
  • Spot check of sourcing shows no copyvio or other issues of concern
  • All images were photographed and uploaded by the same editor in 2009; appropriately licensed on Commons
  • Images of the church are additionally covered by Commons:Freedom of panorama, United States


Comments from Tim riley

[edit]
  • Lead
    • "The original log church was … used as a sexton" – the linked article, and the three US English dictionaries I have just checked online, use the word "sexton" to mean a person and not a building. (The word is again used as though it meant a building in "Construction" in the main text.)
    • "attended by West Virginia governor Herman G. Kump" – really by the governor, or just the future governor?
  • Geography and setting
  • Church interior
    • "Two inoperable stained-glass windows" – does the adjective mean that they can't be opened? Not altogether clear.
  • References
    • On my screen there is a message at the foot of the refs: "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "Munske4" defined multiple times with different content"

That's all from me. A remarkably thorough article, with the principal writer's enthusiasm for the subject very clear (and very enjoyable). – Tim riley talk 20:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tim riley, thank you tremendously for taking the time to perform this review. Your catches, suggestions, and comments are greatly appreciated and I've incorporated all of them into the text. Please let me know if you gave any other comments or questions in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Neutralhomer

[edit]

I am still working on my review, but wanted to make you aware of a couple changes I made. I repaired one external link, and I changed a couple WikiLinks. On the WikiLinks, Brickwork#Flemish bond and Flemish bond each go to the same location. Same with Brickwork#American, or common bond and American bond. Same with the others. There is a hidden direct link within the text that allows this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer, thank you for engaging in this review, and for identifying and fixing the aforementioned linking issues! I look forward to your finished review! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, the rest of the review is below. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Review details from Neutralhomer
*Infobox checkY
    • The only problem I could see is the address. Some editors are sticklers for a source on the address. Personally, I don't see it as an issue, but others might.
  • Lead checkY
    • Looks good, no problems I can see.
  • Geography and setting checkY
    • Last paragraph of this section has only one source. I am guessing everything is sourced to "Scaffidi 2014, p. 5 of the PDF file." Some editors might want that on each sentence, if not, it feels like there is some unsourced portions.
      • Neutralhomer, thank you for this suggestion. This is actually the way I had formatted the article originally, as I prefer to have an inline citation at the end of each sentence. Previous copyeditors and my GA reviewer averred that I should move the inline citation to the end of the paragraph if all the content of that paragraph is from the same source. Per WP:CITEDENSE, Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles. So, either method is acceptable per this guidance. Let me know if this is a deal breaker. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otherwise, very well-sourced, and well-written.
  • History checkY
  • Background checkY
    • No problems I can see, well-sourced, well-written.
  • Establishment checkY
    • The second to last sentence in the second paragraph needs a source.
      • Per the discussion of WP:CITEDENSE above, Citation 19 covers both sentences. My GA reviewer recommended I take out repeating inline citations per the CITEDENSE guidance, so this inline citation was removed accordingly. Before addressing subsequent comments about the inline citations, I'll let you weigh in. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same with the first sentence of the last paragraph.
    • Kudos on the Christian Streit and Winchester references.
      • Thank you! I knew you would enjoy the references to Rev. Streit and Winchester, hence why I thought you'd be interested in reviewing this article! I've made modifications up to this point, and will finish the remainder when I have an opportunity to do so. In the meantime, refer to WP:CITEDENSE, as this may answer your question about the sentences without inline citations. Thanks again Neutralhomer! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well-sourced, well-written.
  • Construction checkY

**First and second sentences of the second paragraph need a source.

    • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
  • Later history checkY
    • First paragraph, last sentence, need a comma after "By 1867".
    • Second paragraph, second sentence, need a comma after "In December 1884".
    • Third paragraph, second sentence, need a comma after, "In 1905".
    • Fourth paragraph, first sentece, need a comma after "On June 11, 1915".
    • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
  • Preservation checkY
    • First paragraph, first sentence, is a bit of a run-on. Is it possible to break this into two?
      • Does this work? "In 2008, a survey of historic properties in the county was undertaken by the State Historic Preservation Office of the West Virginia Division of Culture and History. Following this survey, the Hampshire County Historic Landmarks Commission and the Hampshire County Commission began an initiative to place these identified structures and districts on the National Register of Historic Places." -- West Virginian (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
  • Architecture checkY
  • Lede section checkY

**Like with "Geography and setting", some editors might want sources on each sentence.

    • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
  • Church exterior checkY
    • This is just me, but saying "Each wooden door has a small brass doorknob with a dead bolt." isn't really necessary. If there was something significant about the doorknobs or dead bolts, it might.

**Need some extra sources in the second paragraph.

    • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
  • Church interior checkY

**First, second and third paragraphs need those extra sources.

    • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
  • Community building checkY

**Same thing here.

    • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
  • Cemetery checkY

**Same here.

    • Is there anyone of notable significance buried at the Hebron Church Cemetery? That might be worth mentioning.
    • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
  • Photos checkY
    • In the "Architecture" section, the first image does squish the text just a little in the "Church exterior" section. That might be a little tricky, so I will leave that up to you on how you wish to deal with that. You could move one up to the "Preservation" section or even "Establishment".
    • In the "Cemetery" section, that image squishes the header in the "See also" section.
    • Otherwise, great use of photos, both inside and out.
  • Summary checkY
    • Very little you need to fix. This is a very well-written and well-sourced article. Nice use of photos throughout the article. Great work! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neutralhomer, thank you for your very thorough and comprehensive review of this article! I am going to be busy over the next few days, but I promise to address your comments and concerns as soon as I can! Regarding the architectural descriptions of the church, there is only one available source, and that is the NRHP nomination form. I was unable to find other sources to corroborate the building's physical descriptions. Thanks again, as I always value your guidance and suggestions! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: All the issues I had have been fixed or worked out. :) Very happy with your work on this article, it is going to make an excellent FA. Well done and keep up the great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Dr.

[edit]
  • Perhaps put the dates in brackets after American Revolutionary War?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The brick church was constructed east of the original log church, which was west of the present community building. The 1849 church was " -perhaps change the second instance of church to building to avoid repetition?
  • " "four hanging lamps and calcimine" " -why quote this?
  • Also quoting "original design, workmanship and materials" looks a bit odd.
  • Do we not know the names of the pastors between 1976 and 2015?
  • " "the local interpretation of the Greek Revival style"; when it was built the Greek Revival architectural style, " -I don't think you need to repeat it here, paraphrase it to mentioning Greek Revival once.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sunday-school -is the slash really common?

Did you address these West Virginian. I support anyway, don't want to forget about this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, I apologize for my belated response as I was on a brief weekend vacation from the wiki! I added the bracketed dates after the American Revolutionary War and I changed the second instance of "church" to "structure." I also removed the quotes and reworded the above phrases, as the direct quotes were not necessary in either case. I have not been able to locate the names of the pastors between 1976 and 2015, but it is on my growing list of information to acquire. I also removed the hyphen from Sunday school which had been erroneously added at some point throughout the article's multiple review processes. Oh, and I've rewritten and removed content from the discussion on the church's Greek Revival architectural style. Thank you for taking the time to engage in this review and leave suggestions, Dr. B! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

A few minor issues:

  • Ref 1: inappropriate use of italics
  • Ref 3: Ditto
  • Ref 32: Hard to find the article on the barely-legible source page. A column ditrection would help. On the other hand, the ref fulfils very little purpose and could easily be dropped.
  • This newspaper article provides additional context for the purpose behind the construction of the Winchester and Western Railroad to the church's east. Since the rail line encroached upon the church's environment, I felt a mention of it should be included to provide a comprehensive picture of the church's surroundings throughout its history. The article is necessary to illustrate a brief "why" for the railroad's existence. Is this a deal breaker? -- West Virginian (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 33: Same again as above except more so. What is the relevance of a 1921 article on air-cooled engines to this article?
  • Ref 37 needs to be identified as a subscription service
  • Ref 39: The source page does not appear to contain the information that the church's congregation is part of the Potomac Conference in the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
  • Refs 47 and 48 both require the [[Subscription}} template.
  • Bibliography: For consistency, the Boyce book should have a publisher location.

Otherwise, all looks well on the sources front. Brianboulton (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brianboulton, I would like to extend tremendous thanks and appreciation to you for taking the time to engage in this thorough and comprehensive source review. While the Template:Cite map is a bit out of my control, I can add or remove further content as necessary. Please review my responses and let me know if these satisfy your questions. Once again, thank you. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the liberty of updating Ref 39 with a current elca.org link and a link to the 2014 Synod Guide, which featured all the churches/pastors in the synod. That mentions it is part of the "Potomac Conference" of the Synod.
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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hebron_Church_(Intermont,_West_Virginia)/archive1&oldid=1138462495"