Jump to content

Talk:Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is an impressive article, but still needs some work to fulfill the GA criteria.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    See below
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    See below for one minor point on citation style
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    See below
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    One issue regarding lead, see below; otherwise okay
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    But see below regarding lack of images
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I work forward to working with you on these issues.

Comments in detail:

  • At five paragraphs, the lead section exceeds the limit of four given in WP:LEAD.
  • Moreover, I think the lead is overly detailed. In particular, the street address of the temple, past or current, isn't important enough to include in the first sentence or elsewhere in the lead, as it has no meaning to anyone who isn't familiar with Memphis. The current street address is already given in the infobox and it and the past ones are given in places in the article body, but unless a street address is famous (like if it were on Beale Street or somewhere else that has its own article), I don't see it belonging in the lead, and certainly not in the first sentence. I think the first sentence should just say "Temple Israel is a Reform Jewish congregation located in Memphis, Tennessee." Later in the lead, instead of saying "Main and Exchange", "Poplar Avenue between Second and Third Streets", "Poplar and Montgomery", and "1376 East Massey Road", you can say, (I'm making these up as examples because I don't know and the article doesn't tell me) "in downtown", "in the growing midtown area", "a few blocks away", and "in an outlying residential neighborhood".
  • I can't believe that the names of the current assistant rabbis belong in the lead section. I'm not even sure they belong in the infobox. And I'm not sure their capsule bio's belong in the article text. What's important is how many assistant rabbis there are (an indication of congregation size and financial health) and whether there is anything especially pertinent about them (is Katie M. Bauman the congregation's first female assistant rabbi? that's worth explicitly mentioning in the article).
  • The lead has an NPOV issue by including just this sentence: "In the 1950s and 1960s the congregation became involved in the Civil Rights Movement, and Wax worked to promote desegregation and racial integration." This seems to omit the congregation being split on the civil rights issue, per the article body. It also omits the congregation's and its rabbis' past stances on slavery and the Civil War, which were not exactly progressive. It also omits the rabbi's stance on lynchings and the KKK, which were. I think you've got to briefly mention all of the congregation's/rabbis' political stances in the lead or none of them.
  • The lead and the organization of the article with its section headers gives the strong impression that the congregation has been rabbi-driven, with the members following where the rabbi wants to take it, rather than being members-driven, with the rabbi reflecting the members' desires. Is this really the case? In practice, it's usually a combination of both that varies over time.
  • Related to the previous item, have there been any especially influential congregation members? Temple presidents? Any famous Memphis residents who were members?
  • I strongly dislike the use of unattributed quotes in the article. Meaning things like this:
    1. In 1860, the congregation "contracted for the property"; by 1865, it owned it outright, and was debt-free.
    2. In 1858 the members decided to hire their first rabbi, and they consulted with Philadelphia's Isaac Leeser, the "foremost Orthodox leader of the time".
    3. An Orthodox rabbi, his role was "lecturer, leader, teacher in English and German", and choir-leader.
    4. A "scholar in the fields of language, literature, and mathematics... [h]e also studied law, and founded the legal firm of Peres and Micou".
    5. He therefore opened a "grocery, produce and commission business" to supplement his income.

and so on, there are many of these. Yes, I know there are cites for each of these, but that's not the point, as the article has to make sense without consulting the footnotes. Who is saying these things? The rabbi at the time? Someone else at the time? A historian writing many years later? And why are they being quoted at all? Most of these unattributed quotes are garden-variety descriptive narrative that should just be paraphrased and cited, not quoted at all. Quotations should only be used if the wording involved is especially opinionated and/or lyrical, and in those cases the speaker/writer of the quote should be attributed in the article text. Of these examples, the only one that maybe can't be paraphrased is the second one.

  • The first body section needs to state that it was founded as an Orthodox congregation; the reader shouldn't have to remember that from the lead.
  • More critically, this section needs to make clearer from the start the different religious/philosophical forces and tensions present in the congregation, and the debates between the traditionalists and the reformers. If the separate seating vote was only 18–14 at the start, then it couldn't have been a fully Orthodox congregation, at least not as we think of it today. What were the backgrounds and attitudes of the early congregation members that led to this situation? This matter was the DYK hook, and merits more attention here.
  • At the opposite end of the article, the sentence "Danziger gradually brought more traditional observances back to Temple Israel, moving it away from the radicalism of "Classical Reform" Judaism." probably needs clarification for most readers. What got brought back into Reform Judaism were rituals, not philosophies or interpretations or gender roles or anything else. * What became of the congregation's former buildings once they left them? Are any still standing, and if so, for what purpose are they used?
  • The sentence "The congregation experienced slow growth and then decline in the 1990s and 2000s." seems to overstate trends in a large, successful congregation: "Slow growth" seems a bit pejorative, while an unqualified "decline" is better used for congregations in a lot worse shape than this. How about, "The congregation experienced modest fluctuations in membership during the 1990s and 2000s."
  • There needs to be a much better description of the current temple building. How large is the property? How many structures are there? How many classrooms? What does the architecture of the sanctuary look like, or the social hall? Are there any special Torah scrolls that they own, or special decorations or glass? Based on this photo alone, I'd guess there is a lot to talk about. This is a pretty major omission in the article.
  • Speaking of which, regarding images, it's really a shame to have an article of this length, that is in large part about an existing building, and not have any pictures. I know you have a photo request out of the Talk page, but ... I searched Commons and the CC-compatible parts of Flickr, without success. However there are some photos on other parts of Flickr; you might try contacting the photographers on Flickr and ask if they'd be willing to change their license and see their image on WP. I and others have had success with this approach in the past.
  • Regarding citation style, the one thing I found a bit jarring was the use of "See" in footnotes where more than one source is given, such as "^ ab See Lewis (1998), p. 9 and Olitzky & Raphael (1996), p. 337." By definition, all of these footnotes are things you can "see"; using that word seems superfluous. Why not just have "^ ab Lewis (1998), p. 9 and Olitzky & Raphael (1996), p. 337."? (What I would do is just reuse the existing <ref name=whatever/> instances for Lewis (1998), p. 9 and Olitzky & Raphael (1996), p. 337 and thus not have a joint source at all, but I presume you're trying to avoid having two footnote superscripts together, although you do have that in a few places anyway.)

I'm going to have more comments than this, and I'll directly make changes in the article for some minor fix-ups, but this is a start at least.

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

[edit]

Thanks for the very thorough and helpful review! I've reproduced your comments below, with my responses interspersed.

  • At five paragraphs, the lead section exceeds the limit of four given in WP:LEAD.
  • Moreover, I think the lead is overly detailed. In particular, the street address of the temple, past or current, isn't important enough to include in the first sentence or elsewhere in the lead, as it has no meaning to anyone who isn't familiar with Memphis. The current street address is already given in the infobox and it and the past ones are given in places in the article body, but unless a street address is famous (like if it were on Beale Street or somewhere else that has its own article), I don't see it belonging in the lead, and certainly not in the first sentence. I think the first sentence should just say "Temple Israel is a Reform Jewish congregation located in Memphis, Tennessee." Later in the lead, instead of saying "Main and Exchange", "Poplar Avenue between Second and Third Streets", "Poplar and Montgomery", and "1376 East Massey Road", you can say, (I'm making these up as examples because I don't know and the article doesn't tell me) "in downtown", "in the growing midtown area", "a few blocks away", and "in an outlying residential neighborhood".
  • I can't believe that the names of the current assistant rabbis belong in the lead section. I'm not even sure they belong in the infobox. And I'm not sure their capsule bio's belong in the article text. What's important is how many assistant rabbis there are (an indication of congregation size and financial health) and whether there is anything especially pertinent about them (is Katie M. Bauman the congregation's first female assistant rabbi? that's worth explicitly mentioning in the article).
    • Assistant rabbis are quite significant in a very large congregation like this, and at Temple Israel typically go on to become Senior Rabbis. I've removed their names from the lede. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has an NPOV issue by including just this sentence: "In the 1950s and 1960s the congregation became involved in the Civil Rights Movement, and Wax worked to promote desegregation and racial integration." This seems to omit the congregation being split on the civil rights issue, per the article body. It also omits the congregation's and its rabbis' past stances on slavery and the Civil War, which were not exactly progressive. It also omits the rabbi's stance on lynchings and the KKK, which were. I think you've got to briefly mention all of the congregation's/rabbis' political stances in the lead or none of them.
  • The lead and the organization of the article with its section headers gives the strong impression that the congregation has been rabbi-driven, with the members following where the rabbi wants to take it, rather than being members-driven, with the rabbi reflecting the members' desires. Is this really the case? In practice, it's usually a combination of both that varies over time.
    • I think it's a bit of both, of course, but they have had some very strong, influential, long-term rabbis, so rabbis have had a big impact. I'm not sure how (or if) the lede should be changed here. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to the previous item, have there been any especially influential congregation members? Temple presidents? Any famous Memphis residents who were members?
  • I strongly dislike the use of unattributed quotes in the article. Meaning things like this:
    1. In 1860, the congregation "contracted for the property"; by 1865, it owned it outright, and was debt-free.
      1. Re-worded. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. In 1858 the members decided to hire their first rabbi, and they consulted with Philadelphia's Isaac Leeser, the "foremost Orthodox leader of the time".
      1. Re-worded. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    3. An Orthodox rabbi, his role was "lecturer, leader, teacher in English and German", and choir-leader.
      1. That's from the source, which is itself quoting another source. I'm not sure how to re-word that, can you suggest something? Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      2. Re-worded, as best I could. Jayjg (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    4. A "scholar in the fields of language, literature, and mathematics... [h]e also studied law, and founded the legal firm of Peres and Micou".
      1. Re-worded. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    5. He therefore opened a "grocery, produce and commission business" to supplement his income.
      1. Re-worded the first, but I wasn't sure what "commission business" meant, so I've left it quoted. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • and so on, there are many of these. Yes, I know there are cites for each of these, but that's not the point, as the article has to make sense without consulting the footnotes. Who is saying these things? The rabbi at the time? Someone else at the time? A historian writing many years later? And why are they being quoted at all? Most of these unattributed quotes are garden-variety descriptive narrative that should just be paraphrased and cited, not quoted at all. Quotations should only be used if the wording involved is especially opinionated and/or lyrical, and in those cases the speaker/writer of the quote should be attributed in the article text. Of these examples, the only one that maybe can't be paraphrased is the second one.
    • Typically these are the words of much later historians. To be honest, they were often phrases I found difficult to word in ways that would avoid any possible concern regarding plagiarism, so I just directly quoted them. If you can think of ways to re-word them, I'd be very grateful for the assistance. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried re-wording a couple more. Jayjg (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll work on these too – I have yet to meet the text I couldn't paraphrase ;-) In regard to short terms and phrases, I think you're too overcautious. "Commission business" was a standard term of the time and is used in a dozen WP articles (see this old book usage for a sense of what it meant). "Banner headlines" is a standard phrase then and now; the author of whatever book you're citing doesn't own that term. You can re-use both of these terms without quotes. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm glad you're good at paraphrasing, at least one of us is. :-) And I probably am over-cautious; I see the phrase "banner headline" is used in over 1,100 Wikipedia articles, so it must be reasonably common. I've unquoted it now. Jayjg (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first body section needs to state that it was founded as an Orthodox congregation; the reader shouldn't have to remember that from the lead.
  • More critically, this section needs to make clearer from the start the different religious/philosophical forces and tensions present in the congregation, and the debates between the traditionalists and the reformers. If the separate seating vote was only 18–14 at the start, then it couldn't have been a fully Orthodox congregation, at least not as we think of it today. What were the backgrounds and attitudes of the early congregation members that led to this situation? This matter was the DYK hook, and merits more attention here.
  • At the opposite end of the article, the sentence "Danziger gradually brought more traditional observances back to Temple Israel, moving it away from the radicalism of "Classical Reform" Judaism." probably needs clarification for most readers. What got brought back into Reform Judaism were rituals, not philosophies or interpretations or gender roles or anything else.
    • Well, rituals and philosophies (and often interpretations) are all tied together. One doesn't re-introduce rituals, for example, unless one's philosophy towards them changes. Also, when the editor tries to clarify things that aren't actually clarified in the sources used, the result is often OR. What kind of clarification do you recommend? Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What became of the congregation's former buildings once they left them? Are any still standing, and if so, for what purpose are they used?
  • The sentence "The congregation experienced slow growth and then decline in the 1990s and 2000s." seems to overstate trends in a large, successful congregation: "Slow growth" seems a bit pejorative, while an unqualified "decline" is better used for congregations in a lot worse shape than this. How about, "The congregation experienced modest fluctuations in membership during the 1990s and 2000s."
  • There needs to be a much better description of the current temple building. How large is the property? How many structures are there? How many classrooms? What does the architecture of the sanctuary look like, or the social hall? Are there any special Torah scrolls that they own, or special decorations or glass? Based on this photo alone, I'd guess there is a lot to talk about. This is a pretty major omission in the article.
  • Speaking of which, regarding images, it's really a shame to have an article of this length, that is in large part about an existing building, and not have any pictures. I know you have a photo request out of the Talk page, but ... I searched Commons and the CC-compatible parts of Flickr, without success. However there are some photos on other parts of Flickr; you might try contacting the photographers on Flickr and ask if they'd be willing to change their license and see their image on WP. I and others have had success with this approach in the past.
    • Well, I wouldn't say it's "in large part about an existing building", but I'd very much like to have some pictures too. I'll followup on Flickr to see if I can get anything, thanks for the suggestion. Meanwhile, I've at least added a See Also section with some links to large, high quality pictures of the building and its sanctuary. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, of course, that was an "External links" section, thanks for fixing that. Jayjg (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding citation style, the one thing I found a bit jarring was the use of "See" in footnotes where more than one source is given, such as "^ ab See Lewis (1998), p. 9 and Olitzky & Raphael (1996), p. 337." By definition, all of these footnotes are things you can "see"; using that word seems superfluous. Why not just have "^ ab Lewis (1998), p. 9 and Olitzky & Raphael (1996), p. 337."? (What I would do is just reuse the existing <ref name=whatever/> instances for Lewis (1998), p. 9 and Olitzky & Raphael (1996), p. 337 and thus not have a joint source at all, but I presume you're trying to avoid having two footnote superscripts together, although you do have that in a few places anyway.)
    • Fixed. Yes, I was trying to avoid having too many double footnotes, which others have complained about in the past. Generally, where a unique footnote was next to another one, or where a combination was used more than once, I combined them. I've fixed the "Sees". Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have more comments than this, and I'll directly make changes in the article for some minor fix-ups, but this is a start at least.

Sorry about the slow pace of this review – domestic projects and long work hours have limited my recent time on WP. As you've noted on my talk page, I think all the unattributed quotes are now taken care of. I've made some more changes to the first section and I think the material on the theological split and the 18-14 separate seating vote is now clearer. I added a Danziger quote to try to improve the 'feel' of that section, although more about the shift towards the traditional could be added.

A few new points to bring up:

  • As a matter of form, I'm not crazy about all the cites in the lead section; I'm of the school that keeps them in the body only, for better readability in the lead. But there's no requirement on this.
  • Does the stated sanctuary capacity of 1,335–1,500 mean that it's expandable based on physical configuration? Or that it has grown over the years? Or just that two different sources give different figures? Whatever the answer, this should be covered in a joint footnote that explains the difference in numbers.
  • The couple of uses of 'African-American' are jarring anachronisms here, since that term didn't come into vogue until fairly recently. What about replacing these with the terms newspaper articles from the 1910s or 1950s actually used?
  • The coverage of Wax's role in the Memphis Sanitation Strike is upside down here, meaning it's longer and more detailed than the whole Memphis Sanitation Strike article itself. That's partly because that article should be a good deal longer, but this also goes back to the previous discussion above about the stress on rabbis in this article. At this point I'm tempted to say that Wax deserves an article of his own. But I guess for now it can all stay here.

Anyway, I think we're close to finishing now. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't apologize, your edits and comments have been very helpful, and this process is really improving the article. Regarding the points:
  • As you've probably gathered by now, I'm keen on citing everything, and have included cites in the lead section of all my FAs and GAs. :-)
  • OK, it's your choice.
  • It's two different sources giving two different figures; I've clarified that in a footnote, per your comment.
  • It's true that African-American is anachronistic, particularly in the first usage, but I am very uncomfortable using the contemporary terms, which were "colored" or "Negro". In any event, I don't think it's so terrible to use modern terminology in this case; it's the term the sources use, and in one case is the name of the Wikipedia article.
  • Sometimes this can be finessed by using quotes or proper names from the time that incorporate the 'uncomfortable' terms. But in any case, if you want to use modern terminology, then I think you should do that throughout the article. The one place I remember that doesn't is the use of "Vesprin" for "Veszprém". There might be others.
  • Yes, the strike is covered at greater length here than in the Memphis Sanitation Strike article. And you're right, the Memphis Sanitation Strike article should itself be significantly longer, though even properly written that article wouldn't focus so much on Wax, whose role is more relevant here. Regarding a separate article for Wax, I've thought about that too, but don't think I have quite enough material (or energy) for that yet. In any event, I've now attempted to balance somewhat the weight of the Wax material here with additional information about other Temple Israel members, and their activities during this period.
  • Okay, that's a good addition.
I also think were almost finished. Just so you're aware, I've contacted the synagogue administration about getting some pictures for the article. I'm hoping they'll be able to provide both modern and historical pictures; as soon as I get any, they'll go in. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I hope they are responsive.
And we have one picture (found it on the Commons). Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, as I understand it, the "Wings to the Heavens" image has problems (and the GACR 6a clause lists image use rights as a pass criterion). The U.S. does not have Freedom of panorama, so you cannot just use an image of a sculpture in a public place (and that's assuming a synagogue lobby counts as a public place). See WP:FOP. If this sculpture is itself copyrighted, then a photo of it can only be included under a fair use provision. However I think fair use would only apply to an article about the sculpture itself, not this article. See this discussion that I had with User:Fastily, an admin who focuses on image use rights, a couple of months ago, that resulted in an image of mine being deleted. Now, this rule is widely violated all over WP, including with other uses of this "Wings to the Heavens" image itself. And you're an admin too, so you may also have an expert perspective on this. But at least as I understand it, this article cannot use this image. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the image, as far as I can tell it was uploaded by the sculpture's creator, so the issue likely doesn't arise. In any event, since the image is being used in other articles, where the copyright issue would be even more acute (if there is a copyright issue to begin with), I think we should be o.k. here. I'll put in a question at the image board, and will do whatever they suggest, but I don't think its inclusion here should be an impediment for now. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may indeed be that the sculptor added these, but then I believe the WP:IOWN process needs to be gone through (meaning an e-mail by the sculptor to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) and the images so marked. I've seen that done elsewhere by several other artists in various genres. Whether the image is already being misused elsewhere seems irrelevant to me; I'm the person responsible for blessing this use. When you post this at an images board, put the link here, as I would like to follow it and get a fuller understanding of this question. Sorry to be difficult! One way or another, this article will get to GA. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I've brought the issue up at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#File:David Ascalon Kinetic Sculpture Mobile memphis TN.JPG and commented out its use here, pending a decision by that board. As GA articles don't actually require images, I think that should take care of all outstanding issues? I've had very positive feedback from the synagogue administration, so I'm hopeful I will have some new images to upload in the next 2-3 weeks. Jayjg (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the response there, I've removed the commented-out image. Are there any remaining issues? Jayjg (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That freedom of panorama thing sure does come as a surprise the first time you run across it ... anyway, we're done here and I've passed the article. Very good job on it and I've enjoyed working on the review. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Yes, that freedom of panorama thing did surprise me. It's a much better article now than when this process started; thanks again for all your help! Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Temple_Israel_(Memphis,_Tennessee)/GA1&oldid=1037690976"