Talk:Saint Leonard Catholic Church (Madison, Nebraska)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 10:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ammodramus, I'll be reviewing this article as soon as possible and I will make my comments and suggestions available here within the next few days. After a quick initial review, it looks like this article meets most of the Good Article criteria! Great job on another comprehensive article. Thank you in advance for your patience with me, as this is only my fourth GA review. -- Caponer (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm looking forward to your comments. No worries about impatience from me, since I've only done five GA reviews myself. Ammodramus (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The images provided are of beautiful quality and add tremendously to the telling of the church's architecture and history.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

Ammodramus, thank you for your patience with me as it has taken me awhile to complete my review of Saint Leonard Catholic Church (Madison, Nebraska). The article is very well-written and thoroughly researched, and it illustrates the church's architecture and history quite comprehensively. I've shared my comments and suggestions below, so please let me know if you have any questions regarding these. Once again, it's always a pleasure working with you, and I commend you on yet another job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y The citation in the article's lead conforms to the MOS guidelines regarding citations in the lead, as it is a direct quote.
Y Should there be an added mention of the rectory's completion in the second paragraph of the lead, and the removal of its 1912 date for its mention in the third paragraph?

Hmm... My thinking was that the second paragraph was about the history of the church, and then the third was about the NRHP nomination. The article's primarily about the church, so I thought it needed extra weight in the lead. I experimented by adding in a sentence about the rectory (chronologically, between the move to the basement church and the building of the current church), and in the edit preview, it seemed to break up the account of the church history. Try it yourself and see if you feel the same way about it; it's certainly open to discussion. Ammodramus (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually concur with you on this one, Ammodramus. We'll let this one be. -- Caponer (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y In the lead paragraph of the History section, is there an internal citation for the second half of the sentence regarding the Green Garden Precinct? It may be covered in 125 Years of Memories and Rootsweb, but I just wanted to double check. I assume good faith on the 125 Years of Memories: 1867-1992, Madison, Nebraska as I am familiar with this form of locally-published material and draw upon these pamphlets and books often!

Everything from "early records are incomplete" through the end of the paragraph is from 125 Years, except for the location of Green Garden, which has a separate citation. Ammodramus (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification! -- Caponer (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Under the Interior subsection, the sentence "Two marble steps rise from the nave to the chancel. At the top of the steps is a hand-carved white wood communion rail, decorated with miniature onyx columns and topped with marble." requires an internal citation.

[Slaps forehead.] How'd I miss that? Thanks. Fixed. Ammodramus (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! It happens to the best of us, sir! -- Caponer (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Would it be possible to attach the aforementioned one-sentence paragraph to another paragraph in the Interior subsection? Since it is regarding the chancel, could it be added to the paragraph describing the altar? You may also want to consider attaching the sentence "On the Gospel side of the chancel is a large hand-carved wood pulpit, decorated with carved figures of the four Evangelists" to the altar description along with the other sentence illustrating the chancel.

Which "aforementioned one-sentence paragraph"? The bit about the steps and the communion rail is two sentences, although the first one's short.

Oops, as explained below, I apologize for my blunder. I meant to say "short paragraph" versus "one-sentence paragraph." -- Caponer (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep the Marian and Joseph altars separate from the rest of the chancel, since they're not obviously part of it—when I read that they were, I had to check some of my photos and confirm that they were in fact in the chancel and not in the nave. They're separated from the main portion of the chancel by a line of columns, so they don't really look like part of the space around the altar. You can see that in the long interior photo, where you can poorly see the two side altars behind the columns; in this photo of the Marian altar, where you can see the columns separating it from the central chancel; and in this photo, with the Marian altar behind the pulpit.

I can see why these should stay separate upon glancing at these images. Thank you for pointing these locations and descriptions out! -- Caponer (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pulpit, incidentally, has been through some changes. The Catholic Church has gone through a few phases in which it decided that elaborately decorated church interiors were off-putting, and that they should basically be turned into plain auditoria. A number of churches that I've seen have been badly vandalized </POV> by pastors who bought into that philosophy; one of the St. Leonard's pastors actually gave orders for the removal of the altar rail, but was forced to back down when it was discovered that it was deeply embedded in the floor and couldn't be removed without extensive jackhammering. During my grade-school years, the pulpit was atop a stand 5-6 feet high, and entered via a flight of stairs; at some point, a pastor ordered it to be cut down to floor level, as shown in the photo; more recently, another pastor's had it raised up again, which is its current condition. Unfortunately, I don't have citations for any of these stories, which would liven up the article. Ammodramus (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain with regard to not having citations for interesting stories that you know from firsthand information/observation! (I experienced the same issue during the drafting of the Valley View article). Unfortunately, many churches in West Virginia succumbed to the stripping away of ornamentation, statuary, and other architectural features around the altar in order to "modernize." -- Caponer (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Under the Rectory subsection, could the sentence "The rectory has a sloping roof with overhanging eaves and wood cornices. On the south wall is a tympanum, filled in with siding." be relocated to the first paragraph? I think the one-sentence paragraphs actually work well in this article, but given the MOS recommendations to use them sparingly, they should be attached to other paragraphs as long as they do not infringe upon the subsection's content and flow.

That's a two-sentence paragraph, although the sentences are both short. Ammodramus (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Slaps forehead] I meant to say "short paragraph" versus "one-sentence paragraph" in each of the above instances! With that said, the brief paragraphs work and express complete thoughts. They can stay on in their current form. -- Caponer (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y I made some minor tweaks and edits to the article as I drafted my comments, so please let me know if you have any questions or disagreements with these.

No complaints at all. Good that you caught the missing Wikilink.

I've poured over this article multiple times, and I cannot find any other issues that would impede upon this article's eligibility for Good Article status. You're a Wikipedia maestro, Ammodramus. -- Caponer (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review and your comments—especially for catching that embarrassing omission of the citations. Still can't think of how I missed that.

And now I've got to find another GA candidate to review... Ammodramus (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ammodramus, it looks like we have another Good Article on our hands! I know that I didn't have many comments and suggestions following my review of your article, but this is due to the simple fact that you have written another superb article. You provided rich historical background and context for the reader, and walked them through the property feature by feature and building by building. This article serves as an ideal example of how all other articles for NRHP listings should be written. This is definitely a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]