Talk:Congregation Beth Elohim/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Greetings, I am in the process of reviewing this article for GA. I'll post comments presently. Kindest, Lazulilasher (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay! I've been more busy than I anticipated. I promise to finish the review today :) Lazulilasher (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is just a start. Overall, the article is very good. I have a few quick comments to point out at the get-go. I will add to this list as I progress deeper into the text over another reading.

  • First thing: Photograph of Temple House, I am concerned about this image as it is copyrighted. However, I'm not far from the synagogue and would be happy to snap a photo in the next week or so. Is it still standing?

Questions:

  • Early Years
    • Is the second paragraph also cited to the Synagogue's website? It doesn't currently have a cite.
  • State Street
    • Minor question, it is noted that another merger fell through with Temple Israel, is this because of concerns regarding the services? If so, should it be noted?
Thanks for your careful review of the article. Regarding the photograph, yes the building is still there, and it would be great if you could take some shots of it. Regarding the "Early Years", I've added citations for the material. Regarding "State Street", I must admit to being embarassed about that. If you can believe it, there were actually two Reform synagogues in Brooklyn called "Beth Israel", and they co-existed for over 60 years. The other Beth Israel was on Keap Street, and I've tried to be careful to keep them separate, but I messed up in that paragraph. I've removed the material, and for penance have added other interesting details instead. Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I'll go and photograph the Temple House next week, probably in the latter half. That way, we'll get a public domain shot. Never knew there was a such thing as Jewish Deco, so I've learned something here. By the way, this is over all a well-done article. So, as I go through it and add to the review, do know that: for the most part, this is done well. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words, and generous offer. Jayjg (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Another question: I notice in the State Street subsection that there are a number of short paragraphs. Do you think it would be possible to merge them into longer paragraphs in order to have a more streamlined and thematic prose? Lazulilasher (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Each of the paragraphs covers a different point, so I'm not sure which ones I should merge. Please feel free to merge any you think would improve the article stylistically. Jayjg (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I'll take a deeper look tomorrow, also I should be able to get a shot of the Temple House tomorrow if all goes well and we don't get another hurricane ;) I'll leave a note soon. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it rained today. I'm mainly concerned about the non free use image, so as soon as I get that up and go over the article one more time, this should pass GA. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Checklist[edit]

1. Well written?: The article is well-written enough to satisfy that good article criterion (the prose is clear). Article complies with MOS layout guidelines.
2. Factually accurate?: Cited to WP:RS/WP:V sources throughout.
3. Broad in coverage?: Absolutely. Great job providing coverage on a structure known mainly at a local level. Excellent work, and I commend that you weren't satisfied with just a stub.
4. Neutral point of view?: Yes, the article is written in a neutral point of view.
5. Article stability? Yes, appears to be only 1 main editor.
6. Images?: All images are licensed properly or in the public domain. There was one image of the Temple House that was not, however I took the liberty of walking over to the synagogue and making a public domain photo. The old shot is tagged {{di-replaceable fair use|old image=yes|date=September 13 2008}}.

All in all, good job. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I must second that, impressive work - again - I'm impressed by your devotion to the constant improvement of Wikipedia!--David Igra (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)