The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009 [1].

---

First Roumanian-American congregation[edit]

Nominator(s): Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/First Roumanian-American congregation/archive1
• Featured article candidates/First Roumanian-American congregation/archive2

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive and well-written article on a historic Lower East Side synagogue. It was last nominated in March 2009, and since then it has been thoroughly copy-edited and requested detail has been added. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed the size parameter for the images where it is unnecessary (i.e. doesn't need to be a fixed size in order to appreciate the image). This, I believe (but I can never remember policy or find it again!), is as per policy on Images. If there is a valid reason, though I can't think of one, please revert it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Detailed and well researched article on an important cultural landmark. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Briangotts Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems a fine article, and good for FA status. Some minor suggestions:

1. I believe the floor/story numbering needs looking at, including the alt texts. For example, the second image's alt text says "A three story square building directly abuts a sidewalk. The facade is reddish brick, with three tall arched windows on the second floor. The main entrance juts forward from the facade, and is topped by an arch." In the text (section "Subsequent renovations and appearance in the 1990s"), we say that a fourth floor was added to the front of the building, meaning that the building was at least four-story and possible five-story, depending on whether the ground floor was considered the first floor in this instance or not. Compared to the three-story building to the left, it seems five-story. In the article body, we also say that the arched windows are on the third floor (clearly implying that in this instance at least, the ground floor was taken to be the first floor), rather than following the alt text in saying they're on the second. The alt text for the third image (demolition) again numbers the floors; it says the first (ground) floor is surrounded by plywood hoarding, and the second is visible to the street. I think the floor that is visible was the third (i.e. the one that had the arched windows on the façade), rather than the second. --JN466 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC) I think this is fixed now, pls review. --JN466 23:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. The article is nominally on the congregation, but most of its content is on the building. While this seems quite appropriate, it would be nice if the article ended with information on the congregation, i.e. whether it continued/continues to exist and meet after the collapse of the building in 2006. --JN466 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC) couldn't find any more sources on recent developments either. --JN466 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Just out of interest (it might make a useful external link), there is a photograph of the original third-floor arched stained-glass windows, showing the top roundel with its three spandrels (two large, one small, as mentioned in the text) here: http://www.forgottensynagogues.com/image.asp?img=Roumanian_Congregation.jpg JN466 18:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC) per Jayjg; same congregation name and window layout, but different city and synagogue altogether. --JN466 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
4. In "Early activities", 1st para, we say, "At the latter service, which was boycotted by Orthodox rabbis, Herzl was not eulogized, nor was his name mentioned." This sounds potentially a little strange, partly due to the mention of the boycott, as though Herzl was snubbed at his own memorial service by the large crowd that had turned up to commemorate him. I suspect the congregation was respecting Herzl's modesty; he had expressly asked that there should be no speeches at his funeral service. JN466 14:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC) couldn't find any more sources on this specific service either. --JN466 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review, Jayen466. Responding to your points in order:

1. You were correct, and good changes!
2. The most recent information I can find is from 2006, when the congregation moved to Spiegel's mother's apartment, and vowed to re-build. There certainly has not been anything built since then, nor any stories on the congregation.
3. I believe that's a different synagogue, the First Roumanian Congregation at 3622 W. Douglas Blvd. in Chicago. The website (and book) in question is about the forgotten synagogues of Chicago. You can see a picture of the whole wall here and here. The synagogue is also mentioned on p. 9 of this: [2] It has been the Stone Temple Missionary Baptist Church since 1954.
4. You may be correct; the source doesn't indicate the reason, but obviously found it odd. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Proofread completed: this is good stuff, well researched, well written. Extra brownie points for all the work put in formatting the clickable footnotes and references. JN466 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Recent improvements have eliminated the considerations that I had last April. Well done...Modernist (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a good read and does a fine job telling us the history of the building itself, prominent people that attended as well as the sad demise of the synagogue. I know myself that though monies would have been more available to make repairs needed to keep the synagogue structurally sound if it had been placed on the NRHP, the constraints of such a placement oftentimes makes later alterations, especially those that alter the exterior appearance, subject to outside review that is oftentimes meddlesome. Extensive refs which all check out as best as I could see...nice job!--MONGO 03:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review - All images look good. NW (Talk) 23:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Oppose'.
• This article appears to have difficulty determining its core topic. Is it about the building? Is it about the people? Here is how I see the current article structure:
  • Background information on Romanian Jews in NYC and the founding of the Congregation
  • History of the building - this information is unnecessary in an article on the congregation (or could at least be condensed into a few sentences)
• Building purchase and initial renovations - again, this is overly detailed for an article on the congregation but would be appropriate in an article on the building itself
  • More renevations - overly detailed for congregation article, appropriate for article on building
• Early activities - very detailed account of specific events between 1903 and 1911. Appropriate for either subject
  • Cantor's Carnegie Hall switches focus entirely in the second paragraph to focus more on individuals than either the congregation or the building. I question why there are so many biographical details on some of the individuals, and I think what remains here should be rewritten to be a focus on either the building or the congregation
  • Decline discusses both the congregation and the building
  • Collapse again has focus on both the congregation (which no longer used the building) and the building
• What happened during the period between 1911 and 1980? We have a very detailed account of specific events that happened at the turn of the century, and not much on events that happen after that.
• I recommend another copyedit. I copyedited the first few sections but stopped. There are issues with passive voice and overly circular sentences that can be difficult to digest.

Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Karanacs, I think that the article should be about both the congregation and the structure...I'm thinking that integrating both subjects together gives the article a better overall feel than seperating them. Perhaps more is needed, as you mention, regarding the period between the early 20th century and 1980, if such material is available. It is very difficult to write articles about subjects that aren't well documented in either the news or in books...what we have here may be as comprehensive as it can be, so are the main arguments in opposition about the structure and prose or about whether the article lacks focus and depth?--MONGO 00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs, thanks for your thorough review and copy-edits.

1. Regarding the article, it is about both, of course, a congregation that occupied a notable building. Synagogues are a combination of structure and people, and the word itself, "synagogue", is used to refer to both. In this case the two were effectively inseparable for most of their existences; thus, the article discusses both aspects. Interestingly, on other FAs about synagogues I've gotten feedback that there wasn't enough detail on the structure.
2. You are correct that there is more about the turn of the century and the past few decades than the period in between. Unfortunately, MONGO is right; there don't appear to be any sources that really discuss this period in the synagogue's history in any detail. To be honest, there's very little about any of its history, and—aside from the NRHP nomination form—certainly nothing with more than a paragraph or so; that's why I needed to find almost 90 sources to build the article. I am fairly confident that this is the most comprehensive resource that exists anywhere on the synagogue.
3. Regarding discussions of individuals, when they are famous (e.g. Edward G. Robinson), the details given are the ones relevant to their relationship with the synagogue. Otherwise, (e.g. synagogue rabbis), a brief description of their lives is given, as Wikipedia does not have individual articles on them, and is not likely to. All of this is part of the social history of the synagogues; who worshiped there, who were the rabbis, what were their backgrounds and activities, etc.
4. Finally, regarding the copy-editing, it has already been copy-edited several times, by (now 3) different editors. Of course, different people have different tastes in writing; I've had the unfortunate experience in the past of being whipsawed between different reviewers each insisting on their own personal preferences. I'll take another pass through it, and I do appreciate the work you've done on it, which I think improved it. It would be great if you could do more.

Thanks again. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is not my primary concern, and I would not have opposed on that basis alone.

• I understand that there may be a dearth of sources for some aspects, but including such detail about one time period and not others leads the article to seem unbalanced. The unbalance extends to the biographical information - we are given a lot of detail about a few people who aren't quite notable enough to have their own article and it seems out of place here. Perhaps that excessive information could be moved to footnotes?
• I am not very familiar with Jewish terminology. In my (Protestant) experience, "congregation" is used to refer to the people, while "church" could mean either the people or the building or both. I assumed, as you verified, that "synagogue" covers both aspects, but "congregation", to me, did not mean the same thing. If congregation does cover both meanings, that may need to be made much clearer in the lead for people of other (or no) faiths who attribute a different meaning to the term.
• Perhaps a minor reorganization and slight refocus of the article could lead to better flow and make more sense. In that vein, I'd start with the history of the building (what is now the Early tenants section). Incorporate the "origins" into the "purchase and renovation ..." section, as there is very little information on the previous location or activities of the congregation before they moved. Early activities would then go before "Subsequent renovations...". With a bit of careful prose and the restructuring, I think the article would make more sense and not seem to jump back and forth as much.

Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your points, in order.

• Which people do you feel have material that could be moved to a footnotes? I'm happy to take a look.
• You are correct that "synagogue" is the term more analogous to "church". Perhaps it would help if the name were changed to "First Roumanian-American Congregation Synagogue"; that's what it's called in the NRHP nomination forms. BTW, even though the NRHP is really about buildings, the nomination forms also devote space to the congregation, the cultural milieu and background, etc.
• Those are good suggestions, and I'll attempt something in the next few days.

By the way, please don't interpret my delay in responding as a lack of interest. I've been extremely tied up with other matters, and haven't been able to edit in a week. I'll be quite busy for the next week as well, but will have more time after that. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I've re-organized it along the lines of your suggestions, and made some other changes which I hope will aid in readability and flow. Please let me know what you think. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it much better now and am striking my oppose. On reading it, though, I realized that you were right about placing the overview of the people first. I moved that section up and combined it with the origins of the building section into one overall "origins" section. I think having these two as subsections will make it even clearer that the building and the people combined to create this entity. (and if you don't like this change, feel free to revert it). As for biographical info, this time I was only surprised a bit by the detail on Chaim Porille and Mordecai Mayer; if the details that are given are important to the congregation itself (like their death dates), I can see their usefulness, but I don't see a link between most of the biographical information and the congregation. (I may be missing something.) Karanacs (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I like what you've done. Regarding Porille and Mayer, my reasoning is as follows: they don't have Wikipedia articles, and they served the congregation for decades each (essentially until their deaths or retirements). Each section gives a (very) brief summary of their lives, shorter even than their obituaries, and generally includes activities they carried out while rabbi of the synagogue. It's interesting to note that First Roumanian-American was hiring foreign-born rabbis throughout the 20th century. It's also interesting to note that, although this was a Romanian-Jewish congregation, from 1932 onwards the congregation hired Polish Jews as rabbis. Both of these facts are likely related to the congregation's Orthodoxy and traditionalism (the greatest supply of traditional Orthodox rabbis at that time would have been from Poland). Anyway, I don't think 3 or so sentences on each is too much detail to describe a career, but I'm open to other views. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as analogous to an article about a country, which could well have separate sections for physical geography and for government and culture; or analogous to a Wikipedia article about a person famous for a single incident, which could have separate sections for the person's early life, and for events leading up to the incident. A synagogue is as much a single concept (including both building and people) as is a country. (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the fact that this article blends both architectural ("about the building") and cultural ("about the people") information makes it an improvement upon articles about either architecture and culture-- when an overlap is apparent. Structurally the only aspect I worry about is that it is sort of saddening with the three consecutive sections of "Decline," "Collapse," and "Controversy." But honestly, I think it is thoroughly featured article quality. Getting people reading and changing the wording may be beneficial, more so for their own reading of this article, but at this point the article does not need any more copy editing to be featured article quality, three times is sufficient in my view. Especially when it was already very well written. Best, DVD 02:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think it is a fascinating and well-written article. As to the building/people thing, I have two comments. The first is purely anecdotal, but as a Jew my experience is congregation and synagugue being used interchangable. for example, the Conservative Movement's lay branch is called United Synagogue (the youth branch is United Synagogue Youth) - obviously it is not a union of buildings but of congregations - the point is, I think, "synagogue" or "bet ha Knesset" i.e. "meeting house" is for Jews interchangable with congregation, the people who meet regularly (to congregate) become an institution when they have a building. Similarly, the synagogue I belonged to growing up was the — Hebrew Congregation, which was definitely the name of the building as much as the name of the group the building served. In Hebrew, "bet" means house but it also means family, in the dynastic sense (e.g. the house of David = David's descendents); I see a strong connection between the idea of the physical structure and the group of people. Second comment, less anecdotal: as a social scientist I observe that the distinction between a building and a person, while certainly reasonable and meaningful, is like all such distinctions culture-bound. As reasonable as it is to view them as separate, it is just as reasonable to view them as functionally integrated. One could write just of the building - such an article I suppose would be of interest to architects. One could speak just of the people ... except it would be impossible to talk of this specific group of people without making constant reference to the building. And while an architect might value an article that was exclusively about the building, most social scientists would say that the building means nothing except in relation tot he people who use it. Which reminds me of a joke I can't help ending with. There is a shipwreck, the sole survivor is a Jew who is washed up on a small island. Throughsome luck and determination he surivives for several years until finally he a passing ship sees his fire and sends a rescue party. When they reach the island they notice three shacks. He runs into one, obviously his home, where he is packing the meager belongings he has held onto. Someone from the rescue party points to one of the other shakcs and aks if there is someone else one the island. The man says "no, I am alone ... but I wanted a synagogue to pray in." The rescuer points to the other shack and asks what that is. The man replies "Oh! And that is the synagogue I wouldn't be caught dead in!!" maybe you have to be Jewish to get it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I revised the article to clarify that the NRHP application document, used heavily throughout the article, is published by the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, not by the U.S. Dept of the Interior or the National Park Service, and I added link to the accompanying four 1997 photos of interior and exterior. I added mention, up front, that the building is NRHP-listed, in 2009, despite having been demolished in 2006. By a slow process of reporting to the National Register and their following up with error corrections and other changes (see wp:NRIS info issues, I and others in wp:NRHP will push towards getting the National Register to update about this (i.e. to delist this building). I haven't given the article a detailed review, but offhand it looks good! doncram (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.