Talk:Congregation Beth Jacob Ohev Sholom/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aiken ♫ 16:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than some minor points, this looks ready to become a good article.

Early history

"The synagogue employed a rabbi, sexton/beadle..." Why is there a choice here? Why not just link to gabbai?
"trampled upon" needs a ref.
Ham or pork? Or both? I'm confused.

Images

I see there's an old picture, but what about a modern-day one? There must be a picture out there somewhere - or perhaps you could take one if you live close enough?

Placing on hold. Aiken Drum 18:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this! I'll respond below:

"The synagogue employed a rabbi, sexton/beadle..." Why is there a choice here? Why not just link to gabbai?
- The role of a gabbai is similar in some ways to a sexton, in others to a beadle. While I linked to gabbai, I used both terms as a description, in case English readers were more familiar with one or the other. I'm fine with just linking directly to gabbai if that's what you prefer. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would probably be better. Aiken Drum 18:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"trampled upon" needs a ref.
- The reference was at the end of the paragraph. I didn't include it at the end of that sentence because FA reviewers have tended to frown on duplicated references in consecutive sentences. I've now added it to that sentence too. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ham or pork? Or both? I'm confused.
- I used the two interchangeably, mostly because the sources did. One of the references referred to it as "ham", others as "a piece of pork". I've changed it all to "pork", since that covers ham too. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's an old picture, but what about a modern-day one? There must be a picture out there somewhere - or perhaps you could take one if you live close enough?
- Yeah, even though GAs don't require pictures, I was also hoping to get a modern-day picture of it. I'm not really much of a photographer myself, and actually don't currently own a working camera (mine are all broken). I couldn't find any open source ones on flickr, etc., but a Wikipedian I know offered to take a couple, and possibly one of the rabbi too. Unfortunately, he hasn't had a chance to do so yet. I've e-mailed him again as a reminder, and am hoping to have them in the next month or so. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a shame, and yes they don't require pictures, but it would have been nice. Oh well, I expect at some point one will crop up.

Passed. Aiken Drum 18:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]