Talk:St. Peter's Church (Queenstown, Maryland)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Girth Summit (talk · contribs) 14:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

TwoScars Hi - I've started reviewing this article. I've got some minor copyediting suggestions, but before getting into them, there are a couple of more significant issues that I think need to be addressed - details below, can you let me know what you think? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. It has been difficult to get anybody to review it. Everybody that goes to the beach on Maryland's (and Delaware's) Eastern Shore passes by this church, but nobody knows much about it. I am very busy right now, but will do my best to make this article worthy of GA. TwoScars (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• There are several sentences which are almost identical to those found in the sources, as shown here. With WP:CLOP in mind, please consider rewording:

  The parish of St. Peter's was formed in 1765, and the chapel constructed soon thereafter was the third permanent mission established"

  The enlarged 1877 structure is a good example of Victorian-Gothic church architecture"

  The interior is virtually intact from the Victorian construction period, and contains all of the 1877 stained glass and altar furniture

Will re-word those three sentences today. TwoScars (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed those sentences. TwoScars (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Good, thanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that the article isn't quite focussed enough on the church itself. The 'Geography and setting' and the 'History' sections, which constitute a large part of the article, aren't really about the church - the History section in particular feels like it would be better suited to an article about the history of Catholicism in early American colonies. I appreciate that an article like this needs to have a bit of background to contextualise the foundation of the church, but I think this is weighted much too heavily towards the early history, whereas there isn't much about the history of the building itself, which is what I'd expect. Who were the fundraisers and the major contributors? Who was the architect? That sort of thing. Also, the content about the church itself, in terms of the architecture, feels rather thin - can we beef up the description of the building and its contents, perhaps mention any of the craftspeople who worked on the stained glass or the furniture, if such information is available?

I will see what I can do. We are limited to mostly the 1976 Carley book (I have an autographed copy.) and the National Register document. In some cases, we will not be able to get additional information. TwoScars (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

TwoScars, I just did a bit of searching - can you lay your hands on a copy of 'Maryland - A New Guide to the Old Line State' by Arnett, Bruger and Papenfuse (Johns Hopkins Uni Press)? The church is listed in their index, but I can't see the relevant content on Google Books - might be useful though. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I will check with the library to see if I can find the book. Right now, I am working in my sandbox2 to add to the Architecture section and possibly split part of it off to a new section. Carley's book has some additional information on the 1877 version of the church: contractor, more on the ceremony, possibly cost, clergy of the time, etc. For the 1820s version, about the only thing I can add is who donated the land. TwoScars (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool - all that content sounds relevant and interesting.

Regarding that book, I just had a look on Amazon and I can buy it (in the UK) for about 5 bucks - if this is a subject/region you write about often, it might be a worthwhile investment if your library doesn't have it? Your call, naturally. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't buy the book. It is possible it has only a picture and a paragraph. I will check on it tomorrow or Monday. I redid Architecture section and split it into 3 sections. I don't like using Carley so much, but we may not have any choice. Let me know what you think. As info, I live about 2 hours from the church, and this is the second church I have written about. Normally I write about the Civil War, glass, or buildings in the National Register of Historic Places. TwoScars (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

TwoScars, the expansion of the architecture section is better; if you are able to get anything else from that other book (or elsewhere) then even better. I still think that the there is an issue with a large amount of content that doesn't really belong in the article. One of the criteria for GA is focus - it needs to stay focussed on its subject. It seems to me that the entire 'History' section could be cut, and we wouldn't actually lose any information about the subject of this article. A sentence or two talking about the existence of a sizable Catholic community in Maryland since its foundation, and a link to History of Maryland, would seem reasonable, but essentially I think that the history section of this article ought to begin with the establishment of the parish in 1765. What do you think? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I can make any changes necessary. Part of the reason for the history section is the comment on the talk page that expresses shock that Catholics were in the 13 colonies as early as the 1600s. The other thing that baffles people seeing the historic marker outside the church is that Catholics were practicing in the area starting 1639, but no church was built for over 100 years—people do not understand that Catholics were not allowed to build a church. What about eliminating the beginning of Maryland section and re-doing the Early Catholic Communities on Maryland's Eastern Shore section? I think it is important to discuss when Catholicism came to Queenstown and why churches were not built. TwoScars (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Just looked at the book you mentioned. It has only 3 sentences about the church. The last sentence says "The congregation traces its origins to the first Jesuits who came to Kent island around 1639." TwoScars (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

TwoScars, thanks for digging out the book - shame it didn't have any more. From what you've said, I agree that a little bit of background would be a good thing, but it needs to be a lot shorter. We need to tell the reader what you just said - Catholics were practising in the area from 1639, but were prohibited from building their own churches, and generally worshipped in private (or words to that effect). A detailed exposition about the general history of Catholicism in the region should be at a different article, which we link to from here. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you think of this section User:TwoScars/sandbox4 replacing the History section? TwoScars (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. I think there's still stuff that could be trimmed - we're going back a long way before the founding of this church if we're talking about Catholics coming across on ships from England - it's still really a history of early Catholicism in Maryland. What's the first thing we can directly link to this church - was Doncaster Chapel actually connected to it in some way, maybe that's the right starting point? (The rest of the material might be something you could add into History of Maryland?) GirthSummit _(blether) 17:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed more, eliminated the whole history section and added one paragraph (and the multiple "See also") to the end of Geography and setting section. The map showing Kent Island from long ago is gone too. Your thoughts? TwoScars (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

TwoScars, from a quick once-over, I'd say that's looking better. I'll give it a full read through and reassess ASAP. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Good! Sorry for all the back-and-forth. No hurry, I will be at work Tuesday and Wednesday of this week and off Thursday and Friday. TwoScars (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

TwoScars OK - I've been through the article. Please see points below and let me know what you think. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Geography and setting - Paragraph 1

• The wording is switching between describing its geographic location, its proximity to the road, and the road itself. I'd suggest starting with the geographic location (1.5 miles south of Queenstown, and the stuff about the peninsula); then discuss its proximity to the road (can we be specific about how close it is to the road?), and probably trim the discussion of where the road goes (the reader can find out about that by clicking on the link).

Fixed by trimming the discussion of where the road goes and using the order suggested. For the distance from the road, no source says exactly how close the church is to the road, but you can see how close it is in the photo. The renovations and additions discusses the wall put between the church and road. TwoScars (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Geography and setting - Paragraph 2

• 'insignificant minority' - any figures we can add to that? Insignificant seems like a value judgment - might 'small' be better?

I have no problem using small. Currently I changed, and expanded with a quote, to Although Catholicism was the dominant religion for Spanish and French possessions in the colonial Americas, Catholics were "an insignificant minority in a state of practical outlawry" in the 13 English colonies. TwoScars (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think these paragraphs are better in terms of length for providing background info, but some sentences sort of repeat each other, or are confusingly contradictory. We are saying that the Maryland colony was an attempt for Catholics and Protestants to live as equals, and then in the next sentences, we're saying that Catholics were oppressed, and were not allowed to build churches. Would it be simpler to combine these and say that while people were allowed to live openly as Catholics, they were required to worship in private, but they were not permitted to build schools or churches?

It is more complicated than that. The Calverts (Lord Baltimore and relatives) tried to have both branches of religion live together, but had some big failures, especially the Plundering Time and when the Puritans took over. I redid the paragraph and added a footnote. If it is too much, I can drop the note and simplify. TwoScars (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Geography and setting - Paragraph 3

• The final two sentences appear to say the same thing - consider condensing into one.

Fixed. TwoScars (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

St Peter's - establishment

• There are a few short sentences about Mosley which are a little confusing - perhaps running some of these together, with some conjunctions to emphasise that this was a change over time, would make this flow better? E.g.: Father Joseph Mosley was pastor at nearby St. Joseph's (the second permanent mission) in nearby Talbot County, and also ministered to congregations in Queen Anne's County, including St. Peter's. Over time, he came to do more work in Queen Anne's County, and Queenstown became his "chief congregation". He was succeeded by Father John Bolton in 1787.

Made change. TwoScars (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

St Peter's - current use

• Do you think this would be better placed further down, after the 'Today's church' section, so we're not dotting back and forth in time?

Moved it. Still jumping back and forth in time a little, and the images bleed over sections. TwoScars (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Moved it again, after Renovations and additions now. TwoScars (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Construction paragraph

• Consider rewording 'Based on a baptismal register by the Reverend Joseph Mosley...' to something like 'A surviving baptismal register kept by Mosley shows that...' (Note that the article is switching between Father Joseph Mosley and Reverend Joseph Mosley - once we've introduced him initially, we can just use the surname.)

Reworded, fixed Mosley. TwoScars (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

New church paragraph

• Repetition: '...start contruction of a new church. Construction of the new church began...' Perhaps combine sentences '...start construction of a new church, which began...'

Combined. TwoScars (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Consider wikilinking parsonage (points at Clergy house).

Wikilinked. TwoScars (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Architecture

• '...cruciform, meaning that it changed to the shape of a cross parallel to the ground.' I'm not sure the explanation is necessary, since the wikilink takes people directly to the perfect article to describe what this means. Perhaps you could explain that this was achieved with the addition of the current nave and apse?

Made change. TwoScars (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Cemetery

• 'surnames appearing at least 10 times' - is this statement explicitly referenced in the source? Just want to make sure this isn't OR performed by counting the names in the register.

Not sure what you want here. The source lists everyone buried in the cemetery by date and again by surname. It does not have any commentary, only the lists and photos. One photo has the caption "The oldest marked grave -- Joseph King 1820 -- center, against the boxwood." Another photo show Henchy's grave. If you don't like the Surnames sentence, I can replace it with Reverend Henchy, who died in 1895, is among those buried there. TwoScars (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

TwoScars, I guess what I was asking was who decided that names with 10 mentions or more would be worth listing. If the author of an RS thinks it's a relevant cut-off date point then we can mention it; if a Wikipedia editor has looked at a blank an unannotated list of names, counted the number of times each one appears, and then decided which ones to mention, that falls foul of OR. It is probably worth mentioning that Henchy is buried there though, since he's mentioned in the article, so that sounds like a good trade-off. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I am all caught up. Anything I am missing? TwoScars (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

OK - so, looking at the lead, I'm not sure about The current 1877 structure was made using Victorian-Gothic church architecture. Those driving by the church will notice a steep roof and rose windows located close to the road. 'using' doesn't feel like the right word, and 'those driving by the church will notice' feels a bit more guide book than encyclopedia. How about 'The church, which is built in the Victorian-Gothic style, has a steep roof and rose windows, and is located very near to the road.' or something along those lines? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Made the change. I wish the entire article was not saying "church" so much, but I cannot think of more alternatives. TwoScars (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

TwoScars, hi - please review the note in the 'Cemetery' section - I don't feel I can tick the 'no OR' box at the moment. I know it's a small thing, and I'm sure that the assertion is accurate, but rules are rules... GirthSummit _(blether) 19:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Dropped the sentence about the families that appeared often in the cemetery, and added Reverend Henchy, who died in 1895, is also buried in the cemetery. His gravestone says "Pastor of the church for 20 years". (Page 144 of Carly's book has a picture of the gravestone.) TwoScars (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi again TwoScars - I've read through the whole thing again - I noticed a few minor things, thought it would be quicker to just change them myself, revert me if you disagree with anything. A couple of other thoughts below to consider:

• Order and section titles Hi again TwoScars - I've had another read through the whole thing, and I wonder whether you'd consider moving things round a little? It seems to me that the content currently in 'Renovations and additions' would be better integrated into the 'Construction' section - that would allow us to put all of the history of how the building got to be the way it is into one section. I also wonder whether the Cemetery really needs a section of its own - might we be better off putting into the section currently called 'Architecture', but renaming it 'Description' - again, that gives us all of the physical description of the church and its surroundings in one place.

Moved things around, hopefully as suggested. Please feel free to move more. TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Photographs Do you think that the lead image is the right choice? It doesn't actually show the church, which is the subject of the article - I think that the 'View from the south east' image might be a better option. Also please consider adding some alt text to the images, so that a description of them pops up when you hover the mouse over them. (See WP:ALT TEXT for more on this - it's good for accessibility by people with visual impairments.) Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Every one of the photos already had an alt= in it. I added a little more content to the alts. If something needs to fixed with the code, I'm not sure if I know how to do it—I'm using the same code I have been using for years. Here is an example of the code I am using:
[[File:St_Peter_QMD_front_of_church.jpg|thumb|200px|right|View from southeast|alt=old brick church with a round window near the highway]]
TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I moved the pictures around. No problem with you moving the pictures around too. A set of photos is in Wikimedia, and the category is "St. Peter's Church (Queenstown, Maryland)". Also, I will be close to the church Tuesday, and could take more photos if needed. Photos must be taken in the morning because of the way the sun hits the building. Cannot take photos of interior (until possibly this summer) since the building will be locked. TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

TwoScars, sorry about the alt text - it's not appearing when I hover my cursor over them, but it must be something to do with my browser, when I checked the code it looks fine, I should have done this before mentioning it. I think the new positions for the pictures is better, as well as the new organisation of the text. I'll check over the referencing etc now. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

OK TwoScars - a couple of little issues with a couple of the refs, that's been tidied up - this is good to go as a GA. Congratulations, and good work. Cheers! GirthSummit _(blether) 18:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed