Talk:Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow)

Requested move

Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary (Moscow) → Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary – This is the only cathedral article with that name at the moment. ♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 13:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)}

Yes, this is uncontroversial. There are other cathedrals with that name (Perth and Port of Spain) but this is the most notable. If an article is created on one of the other cathedrals later, then renaming can be reconsidered at the time. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hidden comments made by Wehwalt while copyediting

Here are the comments in the text; I will answer to all (version with all notes:

1. Canon law's not my thing but doesn't that require permission from a bishop? - I don't know, too. I will ask someone with knowledge in clerus and church

Yes, your are correct, but as there are no information about who granted permission to create this parish, but I can guess it was Paolo Pezzi, but he is an archbishop.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 11:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)}

1. maybe not the word, you decide - Yes, that is better
2. Do you mean "not used"? - I must have typed "used" in error. Removed
3. Father? Brother? - Isn't a priest a "Father"?

Yes, father is correct.--♫GoP♫_T^CN 11:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but some orders do surprising things, and things can get misunderstood or mistranslated.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1. there is a problem here. Something that happens on 7 March cannot result from something which happened on 9 March! - Thanks. This date was actually predated.
2. check for accuracy, please - It's ok
3. you have to decide if you want "facade" or "façade". I recommend the former but be consistent either way! - Done. Changed to façade.
4. ah, aren't window's made of glass? - not all, as our article suggests

OK, then make it clearer by saying "translucent" or some such, or people will think you mean the windowframe.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Done

1. anniversary of what? - The source does not say of what, but I think of the cathedral.
2. doublecheck capitalisation please, also please check for disambiguation links - Done
3. please doublecheck capitalisation - Ditto

Thanks for these useful comments. I will try to resolve the rest. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 21:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)}

1. Canon law's not my thing but doesn't that require permission from a bishop? - Another good question! I really don't have a clue.
2. If you are going to mention that the institute asked for compensation, you should say whether they got it - I could not find any information about this.
3. Huh? - Not sure why you are surprised :)

Remind me of the context of htat.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"It was constructed entirely from red bricks, and was not rendered outside." ♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 15:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)}

1. something should be done about the dual use of "bays long" but I don't feel I know enough about this field to change it - Allright, will ask.

I learnt after my post at the Reference Desk that "bays" is actually not a unit, so I reworded it.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 11:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)}

1. you need to say why it wasn't adopted, briefly - No information available. Maybe there is more information about this in the "Further reading" books, but I don't own these books. I will try to find a solution for this.
2. Something is missing here. Possibly "passageway"? - Not sure what you mean. The sentence describes where the crypta is located.
3. this needs explanation, do they now sit without regard to gender? - Yes. I added a clause.
4. This seems very contradictory, if the original had to remain in Switz, what was sent to Moscow? Also, the bit about the stop is probably worth not including. - a copy of that stop was created. I don't see any issues to include its name.

I did not read properly. Done.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 01:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)}

1. of what diocese - Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Moscow. Done.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 21:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)}

And now the very last hidden comments:

1. If this is not a direct quote from the Russian decree, it needs to be inline sourced - It is a direct qoute from the procatholic site: "возвести здание в отдалении от центра города и не в близком соседстве с особо чтимыми православными святынями"
2. You really need some material in here about the political change that was going on at that time. This applies to the first two paragraphs especially - I added information about Gorbachev's policies. I will add more content about the Soviet policies in the early years.

Added the same information from lead to the text [1]. I added "Marxist-Leninst", as theistic Communism exist (such as Christian Communism).♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 14:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)}

Ok, I think these were all hidden comments. ♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 22:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)}

OK, I will go through it again once I clear up more pressing promises. Always remember the subject of an article needs context to make the reader understand why things happened.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

From User talk:GreatOrangePumpkin/Sandbox13

Lead

1. Two Catholic churches in Moscow  included
2. 1894, voting for new church
3. Tomasz Bokhdanovicz-Dvorzetski architect  included
4. 1899, groundbreaking; 1901, work started - 1911, end
5. Money funded by Catholic perishes from Russia and other countries
6. 21 December 1911, consecration
7. 1929, Peter and Paul parish dissolved by Soviets
8. 1935, prosperty shortened
9. 1936, school on its prosperty
10. 30 July 1938, closure
11. Reconstructed to a hostel and lost parts to a residence
12. 1956, institute Mosspetspromproyekt entered
13. 1989, "The Polish House" asked for repatriation
14. 1990, first Mass since closure
15. 2 November 1995, orders by Yuri Lushkov for institute to leave
16. 2 February 1996, received permission to use the church for indefinetely time
17. 12 December 1999, end of reconstruction
18. Three-aisles neo-gothical basilica; build from red bricks
19. Facade based on designs of Westminster Abbey and Milan Cathedral
20. Organ one of the biggest in Russia; today's organ from Basel Münster; consecrated in 16. Januar 2005
21. Rest:  Done

First construction period

• next batch of edits, please check
  • You replaced "parish" with "population", but I don't think this is correct

• fair enough, just trying to avoid repeating parish Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• following a submission of a petition by the Governor-General of Moscow — sounds odd to me, the governor petitioning the council. Is this correct?
  • Yes, it should be vice versa. Done
• 10 hectare — Do you need to give US conversions (just checking)?
  • Isn't it an international unit :P?

• Some projects are plagued by an insistence on conversion, if you can get away with it, that's fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• heavily downsized — does this mean "smaller"?
  • yes
• US$26,7630,13 and US$7,764,172.62 — I'm not happy with the two conversions.

• "Roughly" doesn't fit with conversions accurate to the cent. Conversions to eight significant figures are meaningless, two at most

• Rounded up

• The first figure has the comma in the wrong place, I didn't fix in case there was an omitted digit.

• Fixed

• I'm not clear why you have converted to USD instead of modern rouble values, although I'm willing to be persuaded.
• Manual conversion soon dates, why don't you use a template? In an earlier edit of my current FAC, Titchwell Marsh, I had — A 2002 survey reported that an estimated 137,700 visitors spent £1.8 million locally in 1998/9,<ref name = economy>Shiel (2002) pp. 6–16</ref> equivalent to £{{Inflation|UK|1.8|1999|r=2}} million, or £{{Inflation|UK|13.072|1999|r=2}} per head, at current prices.{{Inflation-fn|UK}} — replace UK with US, r is number of sig figs

• Done

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Closure and return sections

I made these edits to the next two sections and the image captions. A truss appeared from nowhere in the text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

 no issues

Just looking ahead a bit, the disposition of the organ will been seen as over detailed, and its referencing is unorthodox. If you think the information is essential, move it to a subsidiary article. Galleries are discouraged, if the images are essential, find an alternative description, otherwise Commons is the place for image galleries. If you have not used the bibliography texts as references, "Further reading" is preferred Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done

renovation

ce last part of this section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

 looks good

Architecture

I made these changes]. Please check carefully since I may not have visualised the layout correctly. Are the holy water buckets really buckets or holy water fonts?

A holy water font. Done.

On my church FA, I was asked to add something on the congregation and services. Check also for overlinking, items should be linked at the first occurrence only, or once in the lead, and again at the first occurrence in the text.

There are not many information about this church, but I'll try to find something about the congregation and services.

I'll go through again in a couple of days, and have a look at the images and refs too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your copyedits so far! :)--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 14:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)}

Reread

I've gone through again Check the second paragraph of "Architecture". What was there before didn't make sense, with the eleventh of ten steps, but I might have misunderstood. I'd suggest that you ask for a peer review or test the water at GAN next Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. The first 10 steps symbolize the Ten Commandments, the last Jesus Christ. Done.♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 11:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)}

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 01:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   ''As the promotion of state atheism was part of Marxist-Leninist communist ideology, the Soviet government ordered many churches closed, including this one in 1938. A little clumsy - suggest "As the promotion of state atheism was a part of Marxist-Leninist communist ideology, the Soviet government ordered the closure of many churches, including this one in 1938.

   Done

   Actually, you changed it to "was part of a Marxist-Leninist communist ideology" which is completely different thing. I have now fixed it. Please pay attention to detail. You can't expect to get articles to GA status, with this sort of careless attitude. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   For a number of years during World War II, it faced the prospect of demolition, but was instead used for civil purposes, housing an institute. - "During World War II, the cathedral was threatened with demolition, but was instead used for civil purposes, as a warehouse and then a hostel."

   Changed

   The three-aisled cathedral, built from red bricks, "red brick", rather than "red bricks"

   Done

   (Russ.: Католический вестник — Свет Евангелия) "Russian" not "Russ"

   Done

   It was consecrated in 2005 already stated in the preceding paragraph.

   Removed sentence

   At the end of the 19th century, only two Catholic cathedrals existed in Moscow - the lead states " It is one of only two Catholic churches" - please be consistent about the use of the terms "cathedral" and "church".

   Ok

   ''and cost at that time 10,000 ruble - "rubles"

   Done

   The groundbreaking occurred in 1899, but the actual construction work started in 1901 and lasted until 1911. - "Groundbreaking was in 1899, but construction did not start until 1901 and continued until 1911"

   Ok

   The construction costed 290,000 ruble" - "rubles"

   Changed

   The majority of the money was given by members of the Polish parish. Other donations came from Catholic parishes all over Russia and from foreign countries, mainly Poland and Belarus - "Most of the money was donated by members of the Polish parish of Moscow. Other funds came from Catholic parishes throughout Russia and from foreign countries, mainly Poland and Belarus."

   Changed

   The article needs a thorough line by line copy-edit by someone familiar with good written plain English. Word choice and grammatical construction throughout are poor. Examples cited above are just from the first few paragraphs, but flaws are evident throughout.

   It already received copyedits by two editors familiar with good written plain English. I made few changes [2]. It would be nice to know more examples.

   At the time it was on the mainpage, many users have made copyedits. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

   Well obviously the copy-editors used previously were not competent. You asked for more examples:

   here are a few, but the prose is in very poor shape throughout. If you cannot see the errors yourself then you need to enlist the aid of someone who can.

   With city's permission another mass took place

   Reworded

   was officially recognized in 31 May

   Changed to "acknowledged"

   Meanwhile parts of church were subleased

   I think there should be a comma after meanwhile

   Added "the"--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

   signed an assignment in 1 February 1992

   Changed to decree

   while others started clearing the truss.

   While other?

   The decision was predated on 7 March, and arranged an evacuation of the building by the institute by 1996.

   Reworded

   In a meeting with Polish Ambassador Stanisław Ciosek in 15 March 1995, acting mayor of Moscow, Alexander Musykantski, assured him that the return of the church would be complete by the end of the year.

   Reworded

   Subsequently, the institute director asked the parish priest for a final extension the removal date by two weeks,

   Added "of"

   In March 2002, members of the cathedral and Catholics from other European cities participated in a rosary led by the Pope by video conference.

   Reworded

   Alike the buttresses, the first ten steps leading to the portal

   removed "leading"

   Consistency in units: 65 m, each with lateral arms 13 m long and then three-metre bright rose window Use the convert template.

   Converted; all units now consistent--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

   There is a stone crucifix and a holy water font, on each side on the entry.

   Reworded

   and on the right side an anniversary of the church medal ???

   Reworded

   Latter were fitted out with benches until the closure of the church in 1938; unlike today, the left side reserved for women, the right for men

   Done

   As I said very poor throughout and I haven't got to the end. Find someone competent to help you. It is not the reviewer's job to copy-edit the article, you should do that before nomination.

   The lead should fully summarize the article, see WP:LEAD. Architectural details section should be summarized in the lead

   Yes, but the lead should include the most important aspects from the text. I believe there should be as less information as possible, as the majority is interested in the building's history, not the architecture. Also, most won't understand terms, such as pinnacle, buttress, lateral arms, etc. This will make reading difficult.

   Suggest you read WP:LEAD very carefully and then implement it.

   I did and I stand by my position. The lead should include only the most notable information. As you can see, the lead contains the most important aspects from the architecture section, eg built from red brick in Neo-Gothic style; short summary of the organ; influenced by Milan Cathedral and Westminster Abbey; etc. If this cathedral would have unusual architectural elements, I would reconsider, but as this is not the case, I don't know what you espect me to include.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

   I would expect a brief architectural description of the church in the lead, rathermore than it is built of brick.

   The prose is still poor, you need to find someone to help you who can write good English

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   ref #9 "Newspaper "Russkaya Mysl", released in 16 March 1995. " - use a better format such as {{cite news}} with the additional parameter |format=Subscription required.

   Done

   Be consistent in stating the language of the source

   Done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage without unnecessary trivia

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A neutral point of view is maintained.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article is stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The caption for File:Catholic Cathedral Moscow Before Renovation 3.jpg says "Prayers in the temporarily adapted church (around 1993)." but the image shows just unoccupied seating

   This is incorrect--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

   Ah, yes there are three people sitting down, but nothing that indicates prayers. Suggest you change it to just "Interior of the temporarily adapted church (around 1993)."

   I see the caption has been changed but I don't think it works. You have to examine a large version of the picture to see the people. They are not obvious in the thumbnail.

   Otherwise, captions and licenses are OK

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for a thorough copy-edit to clean up the prose. A few other minor fixes need and the lead needs to include a summary of the architecture section. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

   OK, it is just the poor prose that is holding this up. I shall take another look at the end of the week. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   The prose remains poor, the lead does not fully summarise the article, a minor caption poitn. Not listed at this time. Please get the artcuile cipy-edited by someone else, as it is obvious you cannot see the errors. Then take it to peer review before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Couple of questions

Following a quick coptedit, I note this phrase "The construction of the cathedral was proposed by the Czarist government in 1894" is that certain that it was proposed by the Czarist government, or should it be during the time of the Czarist government? Secondly, Gothic architecture (revival or genuine) is not my principle forte or interest, but I don't see any influences of Westminster Abbey there other than the most general. Duomo di Milano is undoubtedly an inspiration for it, but I do question Westminster and would suggest checking the source again for relaibility. Giacomo Returned 13:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

1. No, it is correct that it was proposed by the Czarist government. Nicholas II himself accepted the construction
2. Its official website is currently off, I was unable to find any archives. But as you can see here, it is correct.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 13:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)}

• I'm afraid, I don't see there that it's correct, I can read the Cyrillic alphabet, say good morning, how are you and farewell (and also something very rude) in Russian, but beyond that rather monotonous conversation that is about it, so I will take your word for it. Giacomo Returned 14:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• This sentence clearly states the architect was influenced by the architecture of Westminster Abbey: "По различным свидетельствам, автор проекта Богданович‑Дворжецкий, использовал при его разработке архитектурные мотивы двух известнейших европейских произведений готического зодчества - соборов в Милане и в Вестминстерском аббатстве." (from the mirror site [3])--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 14:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)}

No, I am happy to beleive you; it's just that I personally question the claim. I expect the explanation is in the ground plan rather than the style and interpretation of the Gothic - that is definitely from Duomo di Milano, but this building appears from the photographs to be more cruciform than Milano and that I expect is the answer. More importantly, I feel that the page could do with a couple of paragraphs as a concluding section - it's left rather hanging in mid air - perhaps some of the more recent happenings coul dbe taken from their existing place and rewritten to form a definite finale. At the moment, we are reading happily about the bells, then suddenly we come to an abrupt end. I have made some minor alteration to the lead (which had all the information there already) so that it clearly wraps up that section - the article needs to follow that same pattern. Just a suggestion. Giacomo Returned 17:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok :). Yes, I somewhat agree with you, but the official website should be reliable. However, as it the site is down (hopefully not indefinitely) I can't do much anyway, but I'll try to find some more information at procatholic.ru or on other sites. Thanks again for all your work! :)--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 19:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)}

If it's any help, I ran across this when I translated a page for my post below: The project has developed a well-known church architect of Moscow, a Pole by birth, Thomas (Tomas) I. Bogdanovic-Dvorzhetsky, a teacher at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. The building was designed in the Gothic style. According to some researchers, a model for the main (east) facade facade of the cathedral began in Westminster and the multifaceted unusual dome, topped with high spire, was inspired by the famous dome of the cathedral in Milan. Three-dimensional solution of the church refers to psevdobazilikalnomu type (average height than the nave side, but devoid of windows) and is elongated in shape ("Latin") of the cross, culminating in a multi-faceted apse, surrounded by a two-story volume sacristy. Gandydancer (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Organ and bells

I did some things in this section...please feel free to change any or everything! Gandydancer (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

About the translation for the largest bell, are you certain that it is not Our Lady of Fátima? Gandydancer (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is a better translation --♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 19:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)}

History section newspaper account translation

I question the translation of the newspaper account. Some of the words, such as solidity and palpable, sound odd. Here is how it now reads:

In the filthy, wretched Malaja Grusinskaja Street, forsaken by God and the city, there rose the wonderful, artistic solidity of the new Roman Catholic church, dedicated to the Holy Virgin Mary. Tremendous in magnitude and height, [...] the newly-built chapel left a deep impression. [...] [Every detail] look impressive and eminent: there was no slightest stylistic taint visible and palpable.[3]

Here is a google translation for comparison:

The dirty, shabby, forgotten by God and the City Small Georgian street rose a magnificent, highly artistic array of new Roman Catholic church in the name of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary ... The huge size and height ...

Any thoughts on this? Gandydancer (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• How about: "A new Roman Catholic church has been built in the shabby, dirty God forsaken and Council forgotten Malaja Grusinskaja Street. Dedicated to the Virgin Mary, the new church, a large solid edifice without any pereceivable faults in its design and style, creates a favourable/deep impression."

(edit conflict) This translation was suggested by the Refdesk.

"На грязной, убогой, забытой Богом и городом Малой Грузинской улице вырос великолепный, высокохудожественный массив нового" - "массив" -> "massiv". There is "massif", but I am not sure if this is correct. I quite agree "solidity" does not fit here, as it describes the whole building, not how it was built.

"все это выглядит внушительно и значительно: не видится и не чувствуется ни какой погрешности в стиле..." - "чувствo" -> "feeling". Has two meanings: either physicial or psychic feeling, but it should be the latter form. Not sure what exactly "palpable" means, but maybe we should replace it to something like "sensible"?--♫GoP♫_T^CN 14:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "sturdy" or "stolid" are probably the correct words- even if it's not ones that would be used in such a context today. Giacomo Returned 14:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)