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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2016 [1].

---

Old Pine Church[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article details the history, architecture, and spatial environment of Old Pine Church, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This article was written in the same style and format as four other Featured Articles on NRHP properties: Capon Chapel, Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge, Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia), and Literary Hall. All guidance is welcomed and appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Dirk.willems.rescue.ncs.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nikkimaria, thank you tremendously for the image review. I've added the necessary US PD tag. Please let me know if you have any other comments or suggestions! -- West Virginian (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Johnbod The architectural section is full, not to say exhaustive. Congratulations on avoiding ascribing inappropriate stylistic labels. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Johnbod. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnbod, do you see any outstanding issues barring this article from FA status? -- West Virginian (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and other comments

• I ran Duplication Detector on each linked source in the article. No issues of concern showed up. (See the next editor's comments below. Apparently, Duplication Detector doesn't flag well on PDF.)
• Nice job with the measurement conversions.
• ? Is there a way you can link something to help the reader know what triune immersion is? I'm a little unsure myself if that means they got dunked 3 times, or if they did it in the name of the Trinity. Is it perhaps like this:

(Dunk #1) "In the name of the Father..."

(Dunk #2) "...and the Son..."

(Dune #3) "...and the Holy Spirit..."

• I believe I've mentioned before how much I enjoy reading your articles about old churches. You really excel at detailing the architecture and interiors. You do it so well, I can close my eyes and picture standing inside that church, seeing everything you have described.

— Maile (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Maile66, thank you so incredibly much for taking time to complete this review, and for your kind words! I am a huge fan of yours! I will address your comments within the next 24 hours. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a fan? Shazam! After you get through with this, if you have some time, I could used help with a review of Margaret Lea Houston. Not a lot is happening on that template. But only if you have time. — Maile (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Maile, I've clarified the statement on triune immersion and have found a source, J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of Protestantism (2005). You were correct that triune immersion involves the dunking of a new believer three times, once for each entity of the Holy Trinity. Take a look at the statement's current formatting and let me know if you have any further suggestions or edits. I will definitely take a look at Margaret Lea Houston as soon as I have a moment and have addressed Singora's issues with this article. Thank you again for your thoughtful review and suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Maile, is this new description of triune immersion acceptable? Thank you again for your review, and please let me know if you see any other outstanding issues. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Oh, sorry. Guess I forgot to say your description of triune is fine. It works well. — Maile (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture section Singora (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the positive feedback re: this article's architecture section. What follows is a comparison of the Wiki article and the PDF source.

• Singora, thank you again for your review of this article. As you stated below, these descriptions are a bit difficult to word differently from the original source, as the architectural descriptions can only be altered so much. I will go one by one, and will address each of the similarly-worded sentences you have identified. Take a look at each one and let me know if they are sufficiently changed to be acceptable for your approval. Thank you again for taking the time to review this article and identify these sentences. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki: Old Pine Church is a large, one-story, front gable log building
• PDF: is a large, one-story, front-gable log building
  • Revised version: "Old Pine Church is a large, one-story, gablefront log building." We are quite limited here, as there are only so many ways to say that the building is large, one story, and has a gablefront or front-gable architectural form. Let me know if this is different enough. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki: The church exhibits a symmetrical front façade, facing to the west, and encompasses a central main entrance consisting of double four-paneled doors
• PDF: The symmetrical façade, facing west, includes a central entrance with double-doors, each wooden with four panels
  • Revised version: "The church exhibits a symmetrical front façade, which faces toward the west, and encompasses a central main entrance consisting of double four-paneled doors." There are only so many ways to state that the church has a symmetrical façade, that it faces west, and that it has one central main entrance with two doors that consist of four panels. I am definitely open to suggestions. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki: The main entrance is reached by two concrete steps, which are adjoined by a modern metal balustrade
• PDF: Two concrete steps with a modern, metal balustrade lead to the entrance
  • Revised version: "The main entrance is reached by two concrete steps, which are adjoined by a modern metal handrail on either side." I've changed balustrade to handrail as it is more appropriate, but again, it is what it is. As always, I am definitely open to a suggested rewording. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki: A small wooden sign painted white reading "Old Pine Church" in black lettering is located over the church's main entrance
• PDF: A small sign reading “Old Pine Church” is located over the entrance
  • Revised version: "A small wooden sign painted white reading "Old Pine Church" in black lettering is situated over the church's main entrance." Is this sufficiently different by changing located to situated. A white sign with black lettering placed over the main entrance can only be described in so many ways. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki: The main entrance is flanked on either side by one nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden window (MY NOTE: the word "flanked" implies "on either side")
• PDF: Nine-over-six doublehung sash wood windows flank the central entrance (MY NOTE: notice the correct use of the verb "flank")
  • Revised version: "The front façade also consists of two nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows which are located on either side of the main entrance." I've modified the structure of the sentence, without any usage of flank or flanked. Let me know if this is sufficiently different. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki: The church's side elevations, facing toward the north and south, feature two symmetrically placed nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows
• PDF:The north and south (side) elevations each have two symmetrically placed nine-over-six double-hung sash wood windows
  • Revised version: "The church's side elevations, facing toward the north and south directions, consist of two nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows, which are placed symmetrically." Is this worded differently enough. As always, I am open to suggested rewordings. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki: Between the two windows on the church's north elevation is located an exterior concrete block chimney of modern construction
• PDF: A modern exterior concrete block chimney situated between the two windows is on the north elevation
  • Revised version: "Between the two windows on the church's north elevation is an exterior concrete block chimney." -- West Virginian (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki: The east (rear) elevation of the church is also symmetrical in plan, and features three nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows with the center window placed above the other two windows
• PDF: The east (rear) elevation is also symmetrical. It has three nine-over-six double-hung sash windows with the center window elevated above the other windows
  • Revised version: "The rear elevation of the church, which faces toward the east, is also symmetrical in layout, and features three nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows with the center window placed above the windows on either side." -- West Virginian (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki: The church's windows have been repaired throughout its history, with materials compatible to those originally used
• PDF: The windows were repaired at some point, but compatible materials were utilized (MY NOTE: the Wiki version "throughout its history" is not implied by "at some point")
  • Revised version: "The church's windows have been repaired with materials accordant to those originally used." -- West Virginian (talk)

• Wiki: The church's interior exhibits an open architectural plan. Against the rear (east) wall, centered underneath the middle window, is located a simple wooden frame pulpit
• PDF: The interior of the building has an open floor plan. A simple wooden frame pulpit is situated against the rear (east) wall, centered under the middle window
  • Revised version: "The church's interior exhibits an open architectural plan.[7] Against the rear wall, centralized underneath the middle window, is located a plain wooden frame pulpit." -- West Virginian (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And so on. I guess this kind of stuff is not always easy to re-write.

• Singora, thank you for taking the time to review this article, and for highlighting some of the close wording. This was a bit difficult because there are only so many ways you can describe these features. I will go through and try to fix each sentence from the article that you'd identified so that it is not as similar as the source. Thank you again. I will be getting to this within the next 24 hours. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Singora, I've finished rephrasing or otherwise revising the above-mentioned sentences. Thank you again for your review. I will re-review the architectural section to see if I can further reword these sentences. Please let me know if you have any suggestions in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Singora, please re-review the article for any further close wording. Corinne from the Guild of Copy Editors was kind enough to review the article, and provide a further copyedit of the architecture section. As stated above, architectural writing is difficult because some descriptions can only be described appropriately using similar wording. Please take another look and let me know if you identify any further issues. You'll notice in your selected sentences above that I took special caution not to duplicate the wording of the original source. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Image review: no issues. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stifle, thank you for the image review! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More from Singora Singora (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-read this and to be honest it's sub-par. In the lead, for example:

• 1. "The church is believed to have been utilized by German Methodist settlers"
  • I've reworded the sentence as thus: "The church is believed to have also been a meeting place for German Methodist settlers." Does this work better? -- West Virginian (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 2. "By 1870, Old Pine Church was primarily used exclusively by ....". This sentence appears twice in the article.
  • This has been changed to "By 1870, Old Pine Church was primarily used by the Brethren denomination." -- West Virginian (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 3. "The church and its adjoining cemetery were added to the National Register of Historic Places on December 12, 2012, due to its ..."
  • I've removed "adjoining cemetery" as this sentence is merely meant to reference the church's architectural significance. The sentence now reads: "The church was added to the National Register of Historic Places on December 12, 2012, due to its..." -- West Virginian (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Restoration section. You've got:

In 1968, residents of the Purgitsville community raised the necessary funds to conduct a restoration of Old Pine Church. It is probable that during this restoration the boarding room addition was removed from the church structure; there are no extant remains of the addition. During the restoration, the church's unpainted weatherboards were painted, a new roof was installed, the original windows were repaired, and the original wood floor was replaced. The pressed metal ceiling may have been added during the restoration.

Every sentence uses the word "restoration". How about something like:

In 1968, residents of the Purgitsville community raised the necessary funds to restore Old Pine Church: the church's original windows were repaired and the unpainted weatherboards painted; a new roof was installed and the original wood floor replaced. The boarding room addition was probably removed (nothing of it now remains) and the pressed metal ceiling may have been added.

• I've added this suggested re-wording to the restoration subsection. Let me know if you have any further suggestions. -- West Virginian (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do CTRL+F and search for the word "located". You'll see 13 results, many of which are in the Architecture section. Losing them all should be easy:

• You: Along the foundation of the church's perimeter are located fieldstones ...
• My suggestion: Fieldstones span the church's perimeter foundations ....

• You: Located centrally against the rear wall, underneath the middle window, is a plain wooden frame pulpit
• My suggestion: A plain wooden frame pulpit stands against the the rear wall, underneath the middle window

• You: The church's small wood-burning stove was originally located in the center of the sanctuary but was relocated to the church's north wall ...
• My suggestion: The church's small wood-burning stove originally occupied the center of the sanctuary but was moved to the church's north wall ...
  • I've used your suggested rewrites for the aforementioned sentences. I've also modified further uses of "located" throughout the article. Please take another look and let me know if you find any other sentences in need of further tweaking. Only four uses of "located" remain. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More errors:

• "Around 1870, the Nicholas congregation of Brethren were in use of the church, led by Dr. Leatherman"
  • This has been modified to "Around 1870, the Nicholas congregation of Brethren was worshiping at the church and was led by Dr. Leatherman." -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Old Pine Church continued to utilize the church and worship there"
  • This sentence has been removed. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And so on.

• Singora, I've incorporated your suggested edits, and I have made further modifications to the article. Please take a look and let me know if you find anything else that inhibits this article from receiving your support for Featured Article promotion. I appreciate you taking the time to provide your thoughtful guidance and suggestions. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Singora, I just wanted to touch base with you to ensure that you were aware of the necessary changes that I have made to the article. I have incorporated your suggestions, and have made further changes. Please re-review when you have a chance, and let me know if you find any outstanding issues or problems. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Singora, I am just checking in to see if you have had a moment to review my responses to your concerns, and subsequent changes in accordance with those concerns. I just want to ensure that I have adequately addressed your comments. Thank you! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Singora, do you have any outstanding issues with this article precluding promotion? Let me know, and I will make the necessary changes as soon as is possible. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "have a "minimalist appearance".": Per WP:INTEXT, attribute it or paraphrase it.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dank, thank you for taking the time to engage in a thorough and comprehensive review and its corresponding edits. I added an inline citation after "minimalist appearance" per your suggestion and per WP:INTEXT. Please let me know if you see any outstanding issues with this article. Thank you again for your review, and thank you tremendously for your support. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax[edit]

Hi, West Virginian. I am impressed by your gracefulness and graciousness. I will comment below in a minute.

Lead

• Lose: unincorporated community. Move it to the body.
• Lose: U.S. state. Move it to the body
• Delink German
• Replace most uses of: Old Pine Church with the church
• Remove as many scare quotes as possible
• Replace image caption of: Old Pine Church, viewed from the west, facing the church's front elevation. with Front of the church. Do not use a full stop as this version will be a sentence fragment per MOS:CAPFRAG. Use the present version as alt text (using the alt= parameter).
• Delink common words like siding, bark, ceiling, pews
• Define extant somehow without making a reader click on a wikilink
• Suggest leaving exact date of adding to the register for the body of the article
• Expand the first use of the convert template using the abbr=off parameter and switch; for distance, area, volume, etc.

Will be back later to comment on the remaining sections. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 23:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkingfax, thank you so incredibly much for taking the time to engage in this thorough and comprehensive review of the Old Pine Church article. I apologize for my belated response. I have made all the necessary modifications for this section, with the exception of one suggestion. Could you be more specific regarding your suggestion for defining extant? Please elaborate further on your suggestion for defining extent, and let me know if you have any further suggestions. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, West Virginian. The belated response only had me worried for the sake of all the hard work you have put into this FA Candidacy. I was afraid it might get tabled in your absence. Glad to see you are back on the con. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 17:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkingfax, because of your review, this article is definitely in a much better position for promotion to FA status. Thank you again for your suggestions. It has been my mission to get every NRHP listing in Hampshire County to FA status, so I am determined to get this one through, too! Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Location

• Image caption is not succinct. It is not being used as Fair Use so there is no need for an extended caption. It is Mill Creek perhaps in the Fall.
• Expand use of the U.S. initialism at first use in the article body to United States
• For the ((convert)) template use abbr=off for each unit measure for first use in body of article
• Do (West Virginia Secondary Route 220/15) and U.S. Route 220 overlap in their usage? Redundant to a degree?
• Substitute the church for most instances of Old Pine Church. I won't mention this again.

More later. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 00:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkingfax, again, thank you for your review. I really appreciate this! I've made all the suggested edits for this section, per your guidance. West Virginia Secondary Route 220/15 is a side road that radiates off of U.S. Route 220, so it is not redundant to state them both. Let me know if you have any further suggestions for this section and I'll make the necessary changes as soon as possible. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History

Background

• Saying Mill Creek valley once is enough, IMHO. Use The valley going forward after that where practical.
• Use abbr=off for first conversion of acres in body of article

Establishment

• Define the first use of extant in the body of the article

• I wanted to clarify what you meant by defining extant in the article. Should I change this to existing?

Brethren affiliation

• Define Brethren even though it is wikilinked

• Brethren is later defined in the article through the description of their use of triune immersion. Would moving this information earlier in the paragraph satisfy this suggestion? Thank you again for your guidance.

Restoration

• How much money was spent on restoration? Were there any donated hours or goods?

• Unfortunately, this information was not available in the available references.

Current use

• Six citations seems like overkill for the first little paragraph :-}

• I know it looks like a lot, but to properly cite all the information shared in this first paragraph, I need to include the reference for each piece of information.

More later. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 00:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkingfax, thank you again for this review. I addressed your concerns and suggestions for this section above. Again, I wanted to clarify what you meant by defining extant. Your review, and your suggestions are greatly appreciated and have greatly improved this article so far! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, West Virginian. Maybe use documented in place of extant? If the shoe fits that is. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 17:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

Church exterior

• The image here looks a lot like the infobox image so is fairly redundant. I would suggest replacing it with an image of a nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden window which is hard to describe, but a picture says 1000 words.
• Delink bark, siding and metal roof

Church interior

• Delink architectural plan, pulpit, ceiling, attic, wood-burning stove, pews and upright piano

More later. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 01:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkingfax, all done! Let me know if you find anything else in this section. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetery

• Delink granite and chicken wire
• Is it a cattle gate or is it a cattle guard? I mostly see guards in place in lieu of gates for places that get traffic. If it is a gate, it really would not matter what kind of gate it is.
• Maybe use documented instead of extant. 25% of our readers and editors are between the ages of 10 and 17.
• Did you mention any of the types of trees that are in the area? Other than the Oak?

Probably pretty well done with comments. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 01:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkingfax, thank you again for your thorough review of this article. As for this section, I have de-linked the suggested words, and I have also changed extant to remaining. This area is primarily mixed oak. There may be other tree species in the mix, but the large trees in and around the church's property are oak. Please take another look at the article and let me know if you have any further suggestions or guidance. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Well, it only took me a month (serves me right for not checking my talk page), but I did give it a review. Short and sweet version, no problems that I can see. Well sourced, great use of books rather than weblinks. I love it when an article is sourced almost entirely (or completely) by books. It really shows the hard work put into the article. Good use of photography as always. All and all, another great article. :) Apologizes for the delay. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:18 on June 25, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, much appreciated - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:33 on June 25, 2016 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, thank you so tremendously much for taking the time to engage in a review of this article. Neutral homer, I always appreciate and value your guidance, and I am so thankful for your support. No apologies necessary for the delay; I apologize to you for my delayed response to this statement. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome and No Worries. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:22 on June 30, 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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