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 Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [1].

Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee)[edit]

Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it achieved GA status in August, and has been considerably improved since then. I believe this article about a notable American Jewish congregation/synagogue now meets all the Featured article criteria. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first was Jonas Levy, who was hired as cantor and ritual slaughterer,[11][16][17]
Also not keen on multiple tags inside sentences, e.g.
  • The son of a rabbi,[44] he was born in Marktsteft, Bavaria in 1846,[45] and attended three institutions of higher learning in Germany,[44] before being was ordained there.[46]
Could you find a single source who says these things, or else consider bundling the refs between one set of ref tags? Also note the "being was" in the second example. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've fixed the grammar issue, and will start to bundle triple refs over the next couple of days. Regarding finding a single ref for a sentence, wherever possible I did that, but sometimes the refs just covered specific points. I'll try to bundle them too. Jayjg (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I think I've fixed all the triple references, and quite a few of the "in the middle of the sentence" references too, wherever I thought it was reasonable or feasible to do so. References in the middle of a sentence have never bothered me, particularly where they support different thoughts (e.g. parts of a sentence separated by a semi-colon). Please let me know if you think there are more that should be consolidated. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The year Ettelson arrived at Children of Israel he organized the Cross Cut Club, an inter-faith group intended 'to interchange views, to promote mutual understanding, cutting across denominational lines and working towards that understanding and good will which would prevent or soften religious or any other prejudices'" (48 words).
  • Instead, it could be: "The year Ettelson arrived he organized the Cross Cut Club, an inter-faith group intended to counter religious prejudice" (19 words).
There are other points in the article where things are spelled out too much, and tightening would make it easier to read. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I see you think the level of detail is too high. I've made the change you suggest, which was a good one, and I'll go through the article again, trying to remove other similar material. It may be that I'm too close to the material to know exactly what could be shortened; after all, I've already summarized hundreds of pages of source material, so to me it seems short already. Also, you're a better copy-editor than me; if you can assist in any way it would be much appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can give it a go, but I don't know which details matter, so I won't be able to shave much of it. A few points: (a) you use both en dash and em dash for parentheses; (b) in the lead: "Led at first by cantors and leasing various premises, B'nai Israel hired its first rabbi, Jacob Peres, in 1858. That year it leased its first building ...". It's a little unclear. It leased various premises. Then it leased its first building? (c) In the Tuska era: " In another break with tradition". Not clear what the other breaks were. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your cuts were good. I changed they stray endash to emdash, and removed the confusing wording. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can the Samfield era be cut a little? It seems long. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cut around 180 words, not sure if you think this is enough. Overall, the article is now under 8,500 words, so I hope we're getting closer to what you're looking for. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I cut some more, and moved some stuff into footnotes. It's now close to 8,000 words. Jayjg (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's looking better. It was 8893 words when you nominated, and it's now 7997. Any further tightening you can manage would help. I was wondering about this site, used as a ref 31 times, and often doubled up with others. Where it's a second ref, could it be removed, or could it replace the other one? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In several places I've replaced the ref or removed it where others are used. The article's now down to 7920 words. Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Generally, sources and citations look in good order. A few mainly minor issues:-

Brianboulton (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. Your points, in order:
  • Ascalon Studios: the website is a fine advert for the studios, but I can find no reference to "Wings of the Heavens", or Temple Israel - it's in the reference used, http://www.ascalonstudios.com/whatsnew.html , but you have to scroll a fair ways down the page. We actually have a picture of the sculpture on the Commons, File:David Ascalon Kinetic Sculpture Mobile memphis TN.JPG, but I've been told I'm not allowed to use it in the article, for copyright reasons. Jayjg (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gordon (Encyclopaedia Judaica) is accessed via Highbeam, which is a subscription service. This should be noted via (subscription required). - fixed, thanks.
  • Over-citation: The sentence "Ettelson retired in 1954, and was succeeded by Jimmy Wax" is cited in the lead to [4]. Essentially the same sentence in the text is cited to [129]. As a general rule there is no need to cite information in the lead if it is cited elsewhere in the article. - this is a dispute over which there is no agreement. Some people insist article leads do not need to be cited, because the material is in the article. Others insist that everything in the article that might be challenged needs an inline citation, per WP:V. I'm cautious, and cite my FA leads. Jayjg (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a statement in the lead is contentious and/or likely to be challenged, or if it is a direct quote, then it should indeed be cited in the lead. But your lead citations are of routine facts—X succeeded Y, Z currently holds such-and-such office, etc—which are not likely to be challenged, and which are cited again in the text. This is over-citing rather than caution. I don't know of any policy or convention at FAC which OKs this approach. Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've seen it in other FACs, and I recently had one editor insist vehemently that every single sentence in an article needed a citation to satisfy WP:V. Nonetheless, I've removed all the citations from the lead, as everything is cited in the body of the article. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 104: Maybe give one example of the contrary spelling? - done, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
who moved the congregation from Orthodox to Reform. - "moved" seems an odd verb here, comes across as a bit colloquial-sounding, yet I am stumped if I can think of a better one - "converted", "transferred" ???
Thanks for taking a look! I added "practices", which I think reads better: "moved the congregation from Orthodox to Reform practices". What do you think? Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that works. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
nd used it to purchase a lot on Second Street - Never having been to Memphis and hence unfamiliar with it, is this in...where? Some form of suburb or district descriptor would be good to give context if possible.
This was early in Memphis's history; everything was downtown and pretty close to everything else. The main North/South streets are Riverside Drive on the Mississippi River waterfront, then Front Street parallel to that, then Second Street, then Third Street. Second street is about four blocks from the river. Would you like me to add something like "near the Mississippi River waterfront"? Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that'd be good. Anything that just further pinpoints geography a little. Most of the streets of Memphis don't have pages (I looked), and just having street names leaves me a little rudderless reading it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually added the sentence "In its first decades, the congregation worshiped in various locations in downtown Memphis, near the Mississippi River waterfront", and re-organized the material so that the first paragraph was about the services, and the second about the places of worship.[2] That way, the opening sentence covers all the locations mentioned. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
something forbidden by Jewish law, and despite the rule he had championed. - the second clause sounds odd. I am guessing it refers to the law mentioned in the last sentence of the preceding paragraph - the "despite" is awkward. I'm thinking a reword is in order, "contrasting with the rule he had championed"? Not necessarily "conflicting" or "contravening" since they are separate circumstances but you get the idea...
I used "despite" because the rule was passed under his leadership, with the consequence of not getting honors on the High Holy Days. So, despite this rule being passed, and despite this consequence, he still opened his business on Saturdays. I'm not sure what other word is better, but I'm open to suggestions or ideas. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the position of "despite" that's slightly off. Suggestion:

The congregation also moved more towards Orthodoxy, and passed a rule stating that only members who were Sabbath observant could receive Torah honors on the High Holy Days.

Despite this, Peres himself kept his businesses—a grocery store and a commission business he owned with his brother—open on Saturdays, something forbidden by Jewish law. He was finding his wages insufficient to support his wife and four children, and Saturday was the busiest day. Some of the congregants objected ... etc.

I just realized when reading this that I don't know what a commission business is. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your suggestion, but Casliber also had a good suggestion below, and yours made the footnoting more complicated and ubiquitous, so I took the easy way out. :) I've added an explanation of what a "commission business" is, and added a link for the word "commission";[3] it's basically selling goods owned by others for a commission. "Commission business" was a term commonly used in the 1800s, but today we'd refer to it as "selling on consignment". Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The blockquote rejig is good. Agree that 'despite' was a good word but just sounded funny where it is/was. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: As an alternative, I slotted in "at odds with" for "despite", which I feels flows better there and highlights the contrast. Jayjg, as you're the pilot on this one I have no strong opinion between my rejig and SV's rewrite above (or any other idea actually), and have listed my support as it is a pretty minor stylistic point. Nice bit of local colour :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm going with your change, see above. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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