Template:Did you know nominations/St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo Episcopal Church

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo Episcopal Church

• ... that four-time US Open tennis champion Robert Wrenn accidentally struck and killed St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo organist Herbert Loveday with his out-of-control vehicle in 1914? Source: "Among the cases investigated by the Grand Jury of Orange County during the session just closed was the charge of manslaughter made against Robert D. Wrenn of Tuxedo, President of the National Lawn Tennis Association. He was under $5,000 bail for the accidental killing of Herbert Loveday, organist of St. Mary's Church, Tuxedo, on Sunday afternoon, May 3, when the automobile in which he and his chauffeur were riding became unmanageable. The Grand Jury, finding from testimony that the mechanism of the car had become disarranged, and the steering gear powerless, declined to find an indictment, and the complaint was dismissed." ("Exonerates R.D. Wrenn". The New York Times. May 21, 1914.)
  • ALT1: ... that the Chapel of the Holy Spirit at St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo in Tuxedo, New York, features windows with stained glass dating back to the 16th century? Source: "There are also four panels made up of fragments, three with Swiss sixteenth- to seventeenth-century heraldic glass (one piece dated 1660)..." (Caviness, Madeline H. (1985). Stained glass before 1700 in American collections: Corpus vitrearum Checklist I. Studies in the History of Art. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art. p. 203.)
  • Reviewed: [[]]

Improved to Good Article status by Firvales73 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC).

• New enough (promoted to GA on 24 september and nominated the same day); long enough and within policy. Both hooks are fine and supported by inline citations. The image is good (it's a beautiful place) and tagged approproately for main page use. No QPQ has however been done, and unless this is one of the nominator's first five DYK noms, it has to be done. Let me know; when this has been addressed it should be good to go. Yakikaki (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • (Reposting reply made on article talk page) Thank you @Yakikaki: - this is indeed my very first DYK nomination. firvales73 (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Great work! I hope you will do many more! The DYK is ready to be put on the main page. Yakikaki (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

(outdent)

hmm, I'm not quite a fan of either of these hooks – the first comes off as a little sensationalist, and I think the second could be a bit more interesting. Maybe there's a quirky pun to be made? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that "perhaps the most notable wedding gown in existence" can be found in St. Mary's Tuxedo?

@Theleekycauldron:(@Yakikaki:) Thank you for your input. How would you suggest de-sensationalizing the first hook? I figured having stained glass that dates from centuries before the construction of the church in question is of interest. The wedding dress I'm afraid is not located in the church, it was only worn once at a wedding there.firvales73 (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I don't know. I thought the original hooks were good. Personally I find the history of the place and its architecture very interesting, and the second hook captures something of the peculiarity of this unique building. The first hook may be bordering on the sensationalist, but I think Wikipedia has seen worse. So I still stand for my positive review of both hooks. Yakikaki (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Firvales73: Honestly, I find myself less and less enchanted with "DYK that X killed Y" hooks as the days pass, even when X is notable. That's not your fault, but I don't enjoy promoting them. @Yakikaki: the architecture angle is certainly interesting, but it's not hooky. It's not boring, but it also doesn't give the reader a reason to click on the article. It doesn't raise any questions, say anything unintuitive. As for the fact that DYK has seen worse: granted, but I would be remiss if I didn't try to raise standards. For a more accurate ALT2: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  • ALT2a: ... that "perhaps the most notable wedding gown in existence" was worn in St. Mary's Tuxedo?

  Actually, I find Firvales73' point about the age of the stained glass very hooky – the fact that it's old is one thing, but the fact that it predates the church itself is definitely something to emphasize: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  • ALT1a: ... that some of the stained glass windows at St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo predate the church itself by over a century?

@Theleekycauldron: I quite like your two new ALT hooks; they are more punchy and definitely would serve to draw the reader in. Perhaps ALT2a could be slightly modified:

• ALT2b: ... that "perhaps the most notable wedding gown in existence" was once worn in St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo?

I can provide references for hooks ALT1a and ALT2b if needed. firvales73 (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not going to pursue this further as the original nominator seems to be OK with what's going on here, but will just comment that I thought anyone who has passed primary school would find it highly unintuitive that parts of a North American church would be from the 16th century. That's why I thought the original hook was, in fact, very good. But maybe I'm expecting too much of my fellow humans. Yakikaki (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm keen to keep this process moving - do I need to have the new hooks approved before they can be promoted? Thank you. firvales73 (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

ALTs 2 and 2a would only be acceptable (even on April Fools' Day) if there are reliable sources which refer to the church as "St. Mary's Tuxedo". I doubt any such source exists.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  23:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mandarax: OK well can I make them into acceptable ones by modifying them? The correct way to refer to the church is "St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo" or "St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo Episcopal Church". I figured making ALT2b superseded ALT2 and ALT2a. Forgive my ignorance! firvales73 (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Generally, a hook will remain active unless you strike it. I've now gone ahead and done that, but if anyone finds an appropriate source, feel free to undo.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  19:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mandarax: Thank you! Are these ready to be promoted or does a check mark have to again be placed at the bottom of this thread? firvales73 (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, it appears that ALT1a isn't completely accurate, as it's only fragments, not entire "stained glass windows" that predate the church. That ALT also underestimates the time difference. Here's another suggestion:

• ALT1b: ... that St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo Episcopal Church, built in the late 19th century, features stained glass from the 16th century?

Yakikaki, would you please take a look at ALTs 1b and 2b? If you give a final tick, this nomination can proceed.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  23:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Mandarax, Firvales73 I've checked and double checked and ALT1b and 2b should be fine. I can't access the sources themselves but they seem perfectly plausible and AGF, as before. I hope the nomination can proceed now, it's an interesting article. Yakikaki (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Yakikaki. Just to be totally open about this, upon reexamination of the source, it seems that one of the fragments is estimated to date from the late 15th/early 16th century, so would it perhaps be prudent to mention this? This just means that the earliest century we can be sure a fragment dates from is the 16th century. I will go ahead and reflect this in the article. firvales73Me (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi again firvales73. I wrote an entire article about medieval stained glass in Sweden and during that process I learned that it is very difficult to date stained glass of that age with any great precision. So I understand the vagueness of the source. The way the article is phrased now, the hook would need to be changed, though. The article doesn't mention the 16th century anymore. Unfortunately, it has also dawned on me that the other hook is also not really reflecting what the article says, since the quotation from the article says "in existence in this country". There are other countries with theoretically more notable wedding gowns (that's a sentence I never thought I'd formulate). So I'm terribly sorry but both need to be rephrased slightly, again. I've struck both and leave it to you to propose slightly altered versions I could pass. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yakikaki That makes me wonder about all the notable wedding gowns throughout the world! Would you agree that ALT1 doesn't need to be struck since the article now mentions the 16th century again? Below I have included a hook to better reflect the gown source:

• ALT2c: ... that "perhaps the most notable wedding gown in existence in this country" was once worn in St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo?

Also since the article once again mentions the 16th century, can ALT1b be "unstruck"? firvales73 (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi firvales73, I'm happy to give ALT2c the go ahead! As regards the stained glass, what does the source actually say? That they could be from the late 15th to early 16th century, or something like that? I think the span indicated by the source should be mentioned in the article, otherwise we are interpreting the source in a way we probably shouldn't, don't you agree? And I think we shouldn't take such liberties in the hook, either. But perhaps it's feasible to construct a good ALT hook which is a bit closer to what the source says? Thanks for your patience with this, by the way. DYK is normally a more straightforward exercise, I hope it won't discourage you from future DYKs. Best, Yakikaki (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Yakikaki, no worries! The source page has four entries: the first is called "DONOR FRAGMENT" from Germany from the late 15th/early 16th century, one titled "PROPHET" from Germany from the 16th century, another called "FRAGMENT, ROMAN SOLDIER BEARING A TORCH" from Germany from the 16th century, and the last entry is called "FRAGMENTS" and says "There are also four panels made up of fragments, three with Swiss sixteenth- to seventeenth-century heraldic glass (one piece dated 1660), and one with architectural details and a monogram M̄A (German, 16th century?)." firvales73 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

All right, so at least some of them are solidly placed in the 16th century. That would mean the original hook is OK, and the wording of the article. Unstriking ALT1b and approving ALT2c. Fingers crossed it's the last addition. Yakikaki (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)