I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the requirements, or is close enough that it will meet them with a little editing during the FAC review process. Also, this article stands at the crossroads of many WikiProjects, where (if promoted) it will be:
for WikiProject China, the only FA of a religious structure in China.
for WikiProject Catholicism, the only FA of a cathedral(!) and the only FA of a Catholic structure in all of Asia.
for WikiProject Christianity, one of the only FAs of a church and also the only FA of a Christian structure in all of Asia.
I don't think McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink is struggling because it is short, IMO. And there are shorter FAs than this. The requirement is that there is a breadth of coverage on the topic. Do you feel I need to add more detail? I'm no longer living in Qingdao, so that gets a bit more difficult, but I have some digital photographs of pages a book written in Chinese that talks about the cathedral (shown to me by one of the priests there), and I'll see about getting that translated and seeing if it turns up anything of value. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!16:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something is wrong, then, because St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao is about 1600 words, and Baden-Powell House is about 1400, as per my cut-and-paste into MS Word. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!15:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I count Baden as 8813 characters (1406 words) and yours is 8977 characters (1480 words) counting quotations, but the prose counter excludes quotations, image captions, section titles, etc. The main difference is the quotations, which when excluded take the count down to 7123 (1161). I guess yours is about the same size as the other one. However, keep in mind that is a four year old FA. I am not sure how it would fare in the current evaluation process. Is there anything promoted since 2009 that is less than 10,000 characters or 1500 words? I will evaluate this on its merits, but would prefer more beef. When you collate your responses below, I will also look at the possibility for expansion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Two disambig links, most images do not have alt text, ref 12 is dead, still not convinced Baide Baike is reliable enough to cite at GA/FA level. FIXED(except for Baidu Baike...waiting for consensus)
"It still stands, but has been converted to a school (the Dexian School) still operating today." That's clunky, and a strange way to begin a paragraph. FIXED
"While some sources (especially online sources) state that St. Michael's Cathedral" Who, specifically, says this? FIXED
"Mass is celebrated daily by Bishop Li Mingshu at 6am" I've never been in a Cathedral where the Bishop said Mass daily- and I've been in a lot of them. Got a source for this? addressed below
"The cathedral is far too large for the scale of Qingdao...." That whole paragraph appears to be a quote. Why is that much quoted text necessary? addressed below
"It is listed as Provincial Historic Building by the government of Shandong province.[1]" I think you're missing an "a" there. Also, this doesn't appear to be discussed anywhere other than the lead? FIXED
Thanks for your observations! All images have ALT text (and did at the time of your comment) except the infobox one, because I don't know how to add alt text to that one. Can you tell me more about the disambig links? The source for the bishop saying mass daily is the church bulletin, although if you call the cathedral and ask them, they'll tell you the same thing. The quoted text gives a good perspective to the reader on the size of the cathedral relative to the city, and relative to other cathedrals in China. Regarding the Historic Building listing, there's really nothing else to discuss; its listed. Should I put this fact elsewhere? Will work on the rest. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!09:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. It took me 15 minutes to form those comments, and you added most of the alt text between me starting my comments and finishing writing them. Red Guard and SVD are the disambig links. For the infobox, I added the parameter for the ALT text with thoroughly inadequate ALT text just to indicate how it should be done. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"While some sources (especially online sources) state that St. Michael's Cathedral" Who, specifically, says this? Some of the sources in the reference section, which erroneously refer to it as "St. Emil's Church." That's why I feel like I need to say something about it. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!10:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point, which I apologize for not being clear about, was this this needs an inline citation to show who was saying this. Not questioning that it is happening. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything fixed except Baidu Baike, but I'm afraid I can't support that being used as a source at FA level. I won't formally oppose, but, I'm sorry, that's a major stumbling block for me. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)FIXED[reply]
Comments Prose and style need polishing: small e for "east end" & this should be linked east end. But caps for Nativity (link Nativity of Jesus in art), Pieta, etc Linking is not great throughout. I'd avoid "atop" - there are 2 [is still 1]. It's a bit short & scrappy but I appreciate there will be less information available here than there would be in other countries. The apse mural is not described. "10 million" not in figures.Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Points above are FIXED except for apse mural description. I have a question: is that necessary, given that the mural appears in a photograph? If so, I guess I'll look at the photo and write a description. Just let me know. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!06:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you turn the quote at the top of the Location and exterior section to prose. Its out of place as the lead para, and is mostly stats. Ceoilsláinte12:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rearranged the section a bit. That quote has few stats in it, compared to text. Perhaps you thought the second paragraph was part of the quote? ɳorɑfʈ Talk!14:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the length is suitable for the subject. There are shorter FAs than this candidate. I think it meets the FA requirements, but hey, that's just me. Everyone else is weighing in, so we'll see where consensus lands. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!15:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Two bare numbered links in the references.
I'm not impressed with the quality of the referencing - 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia, signs on the church itself, and what is "The Dexian School on Dexian Road" supposed to reference?
"The Dexian School on Dexian Road" is not a reference, but an explanatory note presented in the footnote. I learned this was acceptable from Wikipedia:Layout#Notes_and_References: "These sections present (1) citations that verify the information in the article, and (2) explanatory notes that would be awkward in the body text." (emphasis mine). I'm not sure what the quality problems are with the references. The 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia was the most current source of 1908 statistics possible (which is what it references). A sign on the church grounds is a primary source, and I can upload a picture of the sign to Wikimedia Commons if that will help. I fixed the bare numbered links by just listing the URLs without links. Not sure how to both list them (long form) and also make them link... ɳorɑfʈ Talk!14:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The old part of Qingdao. The city originated in the area the cathedral now stands, and over the years grew away from that area. Now "downtown" Qingdao isn't anywhere near it. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!16:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In 1902 they built a Church (building). In 1931 they started building a Cathedral, finished in 1934. The old church (which is right next to the cathedral) is now used as a school. I have a photograph of a photograph taken in 1902 of the old church. The caption (in Chinese) reads "Steyl Mission Catholic Church Completed 1902." Maybe I should upload that. 115.147.230.232 (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Church (building) and cathedral have already been Wikilinked in the article, at your request. However, I don't know that an article about a particular cathedral is the appropriate place to describe the difference between a church and a cathedral. I'd be happy to explain the differences between the original church and St. Michael's Cathedral, but there is little information on the original church, save that photo & the fact that it was the Steyl Mission headquarters for Shandong, so I can't say much except "The cathedral is bigger & newer" ɳorɑfʈ Talk!06:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It still stands today, but is now used as a school." seems malplaced in the articleMOVED
Explain this "On drawings published before completion of construction, the roofs of the towers are bell shaped, which indicates the design was altered after construction began"ANSWERED IN ARTICLE
Is there a link for German Federal Archives? What about some of these bishops and such? Link "Cultural Revolution", "pipe organ". I would also link terms like steeple, mass, transept, cross, nave, vault, baptismal font, Jesus, Peter, the Sacred Heart, tomb, tombstone, mural, Easter and Christmas, but I am often charged with overlinking.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)FIXED LINKING[reply]
I would say that some of the more technical or obscure architecture terms (e.g. transept, steeple, Sacred Heart, Peter [maybe], Jesus [maybe]) are worth linking, while the more well-known terms aren't: Cross, tomb, tombstone, mural, Easter, and Christmas. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)NOTED[reply]
Three of those bishops have pages on the Norwegian Wikipedia, but none on the English Wikipedia. I've uploaded photos of Weig and his tomb to commons, but have not yet started his article. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!04:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a reference. It is a footnote, which gives a couple examples of the statement made in the article. I think this is an important distinction, because the article text says "Online sources say XYZ." If we format it as a reference, then that means if you go to that source, you'll find a statement that backs up the claim (i.e. the source will say "Online sources say XYZ.") But this isn't the case here. The footnote provides examples of online sources referring to the building as "St. Emil's." Should I format the note differently to be more clear? ɳorɑfʈ Talk!05:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're talking about. The footnote looked just like the examples at WP:Footnote. But I did learn how to break notes and references into two lists, so I've done that. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!17:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TonyTheTiger that the article is a bit short for FA. I say this not because I would like long articles, but my curiosity about the subject is not satisfied at this stage. I would like to see the article expanded in a focused manner, not for the sake of increasing the prose size, but to get a better understanding of the building. Below some unanswered key questions:
Who designed the building? The text states it was the priest Alfred Fräbel (did he had any architectural background?) however in the infobox appears a second name "Authur Bialucha" without being mentioned in the article, or his role being explained. Who was he? What was his role?Elekhh (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Bialucha did the first design (the neo-Gothic one that was not carried out) while Frabel did the second. However, I don't have a source that says so specifically. I'm going off of an "infobox" in a couple books that lists one architect, the other, or both, but none of them talk specifically about Bialucha. Only Frabel, and Frabel is always mentioned as doing the design that stands now (neo-Romanesque). A new source I just discovered says Bialucha is the "project manager" and Frabel is the architect. Will remove Bialucha from the infobox, because even if he did do the first one, that was abandoned, and the new one was different. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!18:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure that the text documents whatever controversy you feel exists in this regard. Present all your information to the reader and allow them to draw conclusions. Don't draw the conclusion yourself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph: "the original Gothic plan was abandoned because it no longer seemed appropriate for the modern townscape of Tsingtao ... Father Alfred Fräbel came up with a Romanesque design" is self-contradicting (Romanesque preceded Gothic, while neo-Romanesque and neo-Gothic were contemporary with each-other), and is unexplained why such a contradictory statement was made. Elekhh (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)FIXED[reply]
By definition, anything built in 1934 couldn't be Gothic or Romanesque (they'd have to be neo-G or neo-R, because of the times), so the author meant that they abandoned the neo-Gothic design for the neo-Romanesque one. However, that book is bi-lingual written in German and English, with German being the primary language (the book being distributed in Germany). I don't know if they make that style distinction in German, which may mean the English translation is true to the German, but inaccurate because we have another term. Or it may just be an omission. I can add [neo-] in brackets. Would that solve the issue?
Yes, it would be more accurate to make the distinction that a building from the 20th century cannot be "Gothic", so one may refer to it as "Neo-Gothic" or "Gothic Revival" or "Gothic style". Is still unclear to me why one would consider neo-Romanesque more "modern" than neo-Gothic in the 1920s... and is unclear who made such an assumption. --Elekhh (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an aesthetic that is trend based. Architecture (like many things) has phases and trends. In all liklihood, when they decided to start work on the cathedral, they likely took a look at the plans and said "Gothic Revival is SO twenty years ago! We want something fresh." I'm assuming the architect and the ruling Bishop were the ones who made that decision. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!00:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally state sourced content comes from an English translation of a German source, making clear the possible nomenclature loss in translation. Then state other sourcing. There are many experts on many subjects. If you present all the controversial information other readers may be able to help properly resolve the issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its not an English translation of a German source. The book is written in both languages, with German on one page and the corresponding English on the other page. I'm just speculating that the German author wrote in German, and the translation may have missed "neo" especially because "neo" does not appear anywhere in the book, for any of the structures, including other Revivalist structures. I think I've resolved this issue through inclusion of the second source, which is Chinese, and actually (in Chinese) does say "neo-". ɳorɑfʈ Talk!04:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"On drawings published before completion of construction, the roofs of the towers are bell shaped, which indicates the design was altered after construction began" - this is puzzling since bell shaped roofs are neither Romanesque nor Gothic, so where did they came from? Elekhh (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)ANSWERED IN ARTICLE[reply]
Regarding the shape of the towers, it isn't uncommon for one or two features of a structure done in a specific style to diverge from that style, as long as the overall style remains true to form. However, I can state that bell shaped towers are neither neo-Gothic nor neo-Romanesque, and that there no information as to why has ever been discovered, if that will help.
The new source I mentioned above says that the towers were altered because of budget cuts (because Hitler came to power), and I've updated the article to reflect this. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!18:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, but if the towers were bell-shaped in the original design than it cannot be called neo-Romanesque, since it mixed element of different historic periods, and thus was an eclectic design. That might explain why it was considered more "modern". Elekhh (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with my source, and my source wrote a book about German architecture. If he calls it [neo-]Romanesque, not eclectic, then I'm inclined to agree. Also, here is a picture of a neo-Romanesque cathedral with a bell shaped tower. I don't think it is true that the bell shape disqualifies it from being in the Romanesque style. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!00:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean "further sourced content"? Again, I don't think there's any conflict here. Just a minor omission that's been cleared up by inclusion of another source. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!04:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the key references is: Warner, Torsten (1994). German Architecture in China: Architectural Transfer. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn. The title suggests a significant German cultural influence in the design of the church, which is indirectly hinted to by the name of Father Alfred Fräbel (designer?), however not explained in the article. If he as a priest designed the building, it would be likely that he copied or used elements of a church or several churches from Germany ... Was there a model he based his design on? Elekhh (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The SVD was a German Mission, and Qingdao belonged to Germany at the time of the building of the cathedral. I can add some information about this if you think it would be appropriate. I think there's already a paragraph about the SVD. The article on the cathedral in that source does not state that any other structure was used as a model, or loaned style elements. There is no evidence that this cathedral was based on any other. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!18:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it should be made more clear to the reader that Quindao was a German colony at the beginning of the 20th century, this is not currently stated. --Elekhh (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The cathedral is far too large for the scale of Qingdao." This must refer to a historic stage, certainly not today. Needs clarification. Elekhh (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to find out when that statement by the residents was made? Was the 1994 edition of the book the first one? --Elekhh (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was, but I've seen that statement in earlier works written in Chinese (which I can't seem to find now). I have a feeling Warner was using them (although he didn't cite). ɳorɑfʈ Talk!00:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The building appears to be officially recognised today as cultural heritage/historic monument according to the lead. This is in contrast with the prevailing attitude during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) as described in the article. When did this change in attitude happen, in which year was the building listed as a monument? Elekhh (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The attitude of the whole country "officially" changed at once, when the Chinese government made public declarations condemning the Cultural Revolution. That happened right around the time Deng Xiaopeng took over (Google "Mao" "70-30" to see the official "Mao was 70% good and 30% bad" rhetoric from the government. The 30% was the Cultural Revolution and cultivating a cult of personality) I have added a sentence that explains the government's change of policy. I don't have the year it was listed, and have no way of getting it. That's going to have to stay a mystery for now, and I hope that alone doesn't keep this article from FA status. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!18:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No is not an issue for FA to not have that year. The decription provides now an explanation of the historic period. You should repeat the statement from the lead that "is listed as a Provincial Historic Building by the government of Shandong province" in this paragraph. Remember that the lead is a summary rather than an introduction. Elekhh (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The illustrative images are quite good now, however the resolution of the exterior views is below optimal. Consider that for good quality print at article size the longer dimension should be about 1000px (same as the minimum requirement for a FP) and that good quality at Wikimedia Commons is defined as minimum 2 Megapixels (i.e. 1250x1600). Elekhh (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if I can produce better exterior photos. I'm not on location anymore. Will see what I can do on that. If I can't, the main photo is 820 pixels long. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!18:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question unrelated to St. Michael's: It it customary to strikethrough ones own comments when an issue has been resolved? Or can I add strikethroughs to the ones I've dealt with? I've been writing FIXED next to them because I didn't want to step on any toes. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!10:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People commonly strike throught their own concerns as they have been resolved. If you request that a discussant do so it is quite likely that they will. Do not strike another person's concern as resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment I won't be supporting or opposing this article (just as no one else has yet), and I will explain why. I can entirely believe that it represents everything that is available on the cathedral, but it doesn't amount to what I'd regard as an FA. It's just too thin. Having said that it is better than those roads and storms that don't seem to appear here any more, but which used to make FA all the time. The architectural information is reminiscent of some synagogue FACs, which are thin here, but they have a good deal on more the congregation etc. I think it probably technically meets the criteria, though some of the nominator's answers are a tad disnmissive - that the apse is illustrated is no excuse for not describing its decoration, rather the reverse. Sorry, as I can see it took a lot of work. Others may share most of my feelings & still support; this comment is probably not "actionable", but there we are. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should check out the article again. There was a full description of the apse at the time of your writing. I'd appreciate it if you could go back and strikethrough any comments that you've made that have been addressed. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!05:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not meeting your expectations. Could you be a little more specific about what you're looking for? I'd be happy to give it another try. Also, could you please strikethrough the issues that you've raised that you feel I've dealt with to your satisfaction? ɳorɑfʈ Talk!08:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the strikethroughs? <s></s> is the syntax. It helps me quickly scan what's left to take care of and what still needs attention. Thank you. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!09:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I refactored the page, added subheadings for "Page Length," "Comments on Coverage of Architecture" and "Article Issues" to 1) create editable sections 2) organize the information a bit so it was easier to read, and 3) make the page more navigable through the table of contents (can click right to a certain section). But the only comments of yours I moved were the ones on Page Length. All the rest stayed where they were, I just added category names. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!09:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
