Please take some time to give a critique, and I will endeavor to solve whatever issues are brought to my attention. Thank you. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 19:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 19:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I've been there and what me immediately struck was the architectural influence the double tower with its conical roofs has had on Qingdao's architecture and silhouette. The motif must have been copied many hundred times thoughout the city perimeter, having become a distinctive sign of Qingdao itself. This impact clearly needs to be addressed with some lenght (and pics). Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I used to live in Qingdao, and I would not say that the motif of the cathedral was copied anywhere. The German-built houses and buildings have a German style of architecture, not neo-Romanesque. Further, many of them were built before the cathedral was built. However, if you can find a single source that backs up what you're saying, I'll do the legwork of altering the article. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 01:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not referring to the colonial houses, but to the modern Chinese architecture! Buildings which were erected in the last 10-20 years. When you drive on the highway into the city, you see many dozens of these roof-tops in the suburbs. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I see that all over China. Again, please provide a reference. Your WP:OR observations aren't enough. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 00:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: I am trying to point out some improvement, some avenue for further research, but the author comes across with some rules, as if it were a requirement to cite sources for an observation (this is your job, dude). If you see Neo-Romanesque roofs all over China, and I have seen them particularly in Qingdao, I don't understand why you refuse to ask yourself where they come from, since they seem to have made a very substantial impact on local architecture. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see Neo-Romanesque roofs all over China, nor in Qingdao. I don't think roofs in Qingdao copy the cathedral. On Wikipedia, it is certainly necessary to cite sources for observations that appear in mainspace, and asking you for a source is my way of disagreeing with you; I'm asking you to back up your claim, because I think it is in error. If you can do that, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong, and I'll alter the article. However, I'm not your research assistant (i.e. it isn't "my job, dude" to hunt down sources to back up your observations). It is every person's job to substantiate his or her own claims, if those claims are challenged. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 01:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Ruhrfisch. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is summarized as "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This applies to both Gun Powder Ma's observation and to the article itself. Details follow
Gun Powder Ma - without a Reliable source to back up your observation about the influence of the cathedral on architecture in Qingdao, it cannot be included here and is original research. I think the burden of proof is on you, since you raised the point, and do not see this as a valid oppose in and of itself.
Noraft - in my recent peer review of this article I pointed out many places that need references. Please add them in the next three days or I will oppose. Please ask if unsure what needs references.
There are also problems with several references.
Reference 1 is to Britannica online, which is a tertiary source. There are several reliable histories of China that are secondary sources that would be much better here.
Current ref 7 is just a bare link and needs full information
How does current reference 16 "St. Michael's Cathedral [Sign]. St. Michael's Cathedral Courtyard, Qingdao: Roman Catholic Church." meet WP:RS - how does a sign in the church meet "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."?
I struck this since the consensus at the RS noticeboard was that it was OK. I would still prefer to have more traditional sources for as much of this information as possible. Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I also have concerns about the comprehensiveness of this article, which is a FA criterion and which was also mentioned in the PR, but will wait to see how the references issues are addressed first.
The reference issues alone are enough to oppose on, but I will wait to see how they are addressed in the next three days. While this is an interesting article, it does not yet meet WP:WIAFA. Ruhrfisch><>°° 12:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think any of the unreferenced material is likely to be challenged, so I'd ask you to go ahead and specifically challenge what you think needs references, and I'll see about either discussing with you and/or digging up sources. I'd also like to ask for 7 days instead of 3.
Well, I am challenging them - please see my list of things that need references below. Ruhrfisch><>°° 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Why are you challenging them? ɳorɑfʈTalk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Because, as WP:WIAFA says in part "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing." Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding reference 16, I think it qualifies as a self-published source, and as per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..." Also, the sign is viewable by anyone who goes to the Church, and I will be happy to upload a photo of it (with all text legible) if that will help. However, that said, I don't think your point is completely out of order, so I've posted to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about it, and will be interested to see what they say.
I think a picture of the sign would help, but still do not see a sign as something "published" - a self-published booklet on the cathedral, yes, but a sign no. I would be willing to go with the consensus of other reviewers here on this as a source. I also suspect at least some of the information is out there in more relaible sources. Ruhrfisch><>°° 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It is printed on a medium for display in order to propagate information. If I print a piece of paper, that's publishing. Why is it not publishing if I print on signboard or wood? Please look past narrow definitions of the word to see the point: if an organization says something about itself, in a verifiable medium, its okay. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed reference 7 (I suspect I meant to get back to that when I stuck it in there, then forgot), and will see about finding another source for reference 1, although I note that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary.2C secondary.2C and tertiary sources states that "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." I think the information referenced is clearly summary information.
Please note that I'm not trying to be argumentative, just explaining why I thought that these references were acceptable enough for me to employ. I very much appreciate your valuable feedback and suggestions. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 13:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not see you as argumentative. I am listing the things that need refs below. Ruhrfisch><>°° 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I went back and looked for the "many places that need references" that you pointed out. Here they are:
Needs a ref: Before the cathedral was started, a church was built on that same parcel of land, in 1902. It still stands today, but is now used as a school.[note 2]
WP:CK states that "Plain sight observations that can be made from public property" do not need sources. Anyone standing on the street can see that the building is a school. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not doubt you can tell it is a school today by looking at it. However, a person standing on the street cannot tell that the school was built as a church in 1902, that is what needs a ref. Ruhrfisch><>°° 18:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Will come back to this. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Needs a ref: which supports the conclusion that the design was altered after construction began. Construction was finished in 1934.
Needs a ref: It is possible that the first Catholic church in Qingdao, built in 1902 on the same site was called St. Emil's Church. It is also possible that "Emil" is a mistranslation of "Michael," as both names can have two out of three Chinese characters in common ("mi" and "el").
The interior section, the second sentence of services, and the whole Ordinaries section need references to reliable sources.
Regarding the interior, do I have to find references for things one can clearly see in the photo(s)? Regarding services, this is verifiable by anyone who wants to call the cathedral (+86 0532 286 5960) and it is printed in all the church bulletins. Why challenge it? I'll take it if you do challenge it, but I think that would be a shame since it is so easily verifiable. Ordinaries I can find references for. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Most of the interior is not shown in the photos in the article that I could see. How does calling the church office meet WP:V? Please note that an FA is supposed to be Wikipedia's best work, not just "here is what I can see in a photo and here is what the church office tells me when I call them". Ruhrfisch><>°° 18:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't make any assertions about what can or can't be seen in the photos. I asked if I had to find references for things one can clearly see in the photos. Can I get an answer to that question, please? Regarding WP:V, "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed." Self published sources are reliable when reporting on themselves. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Still waiting for an answer to this question. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 23:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe I have answered this in multiple places - Wikipedia is not based on personal observations, but on verifiable information from reliable sources. What is to keep me from saying I have been there and the church has a large ambo and an unusual monstrance, both showing St. Michael defeating the Devil. I have never been to the church, and have no idea if these things are there, but they seem plausible for a Roman Catholic cathedral named St. Michael's. Wikipedia is not a "I said / you said" contest as to who is most believable, it is based on references to what reliable published sources (preferably third-party and indepependent) have said. Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Things that need references
Foreigners, who were centered in foreign sections of the cities, ... effectively removing them from the control of local governments.
Well it is the same Brittanica ref, and I think there have to be better refs out there for this, but OK for now. Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Before the cathedral was started, a church was built on that same parcel of land, in 1902. It still stands today, but is now used as a school.[note 2] The note does not give a reference. Also please avoid use of vague time terms like "today" (as of 2010 would work)
Will get back to this. Your point about use of contemporary language is well taken, and that has been fixed. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned this before, but I do not understand how the large block quote on the removal of the crosses in the "1938–1976: Occupation, liberation, and defacement" section is referenced to three different sources. It is a translation, so is it a composite?
There are three different sources that all carry the same block quote in Chinese (well, some actually have more, but this text is common to all three). As it is the only first-hand account in existence, it is carried on multiple sources. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
In the Interior section, the whole second, third, fifth, and sixth paragraphs have no refs and need them.
Why do they need them? Why would you challenge this material? It is neither controversial nor something anyone would be motivated to lie about. I don't understand. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:V is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Please see below for more reasons why I am expecting so much - if this is to become a FA, it needs to be some of the best work here and that means it needs more refs. No one is accusing anyone of lying, but all FAs need a professional level of sourcing. This is not there yet and needs the refs to start to get there. Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
As does this The pipe organ sits upon the choir loft over the west front entrance.
I disagree that it needs a reference, but I've got one handy, so that is now fixed. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Mass is celebrated daily by Bishop Li Mingshu at 6 am, with additional masses on Sunday and festivals on Easter and Christmas. Services are held in Korean and Chinese, with one Korean and several Chinese priests on site. needs a ref and needs time context (as of May 2010...) I agree that it seems unusual for a bishop to personally celebrate mass on a daily basis at 6 AM.
I also agree that it is unusual, but it's the case, attributable to the church bulletins. Like I said, if you challenge it, I'll take it out, but really I think that nothing is gained... ɳorɑfʈTalk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
None of the Ordinaries section has any refs.
That I will remedy. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. When you're ready to strike, please don't forget to strike it in the other places you mentioned it. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 03:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Several of the internet refs are lacking publishers
Will see what I can do about that. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, I have other concerns, but these are the most pressing. I will raise the others once these have been addressed. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Please look at Stanford Memorial Church the only FA on a church I could find, or Joseph Priestley House, an FA on a building I cowrote. Look at the number of references throughout and the level of detail. That is what I expect here, though I understand sources may be limited. You can't play it both ways and say Gun Powder Ma must cite sources and you do not have to here. Ruhrfisch><>°° 22:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
When you say "Look at the number of references," do you mean "Number of footnotes? Because the reference density of St. Michael's Cathedral is far greater than Stanford Memorial Church. They've got 6616 words and 47 different references (sources). That's 140 words per reference. I've got 1966 words and 19 references. That's 103. Regarding the situation with Gun Powder Ma, I'm not "playing it both ways." The difference is that I think he's wrong, so I challenged him. You, on the other hand, don't think I'm wrong. You just think that having a footnote attached to every other sentence makes something a "professional level of sourcing." You know I found unsourced statements in Stanford Memorial Church too...but that's okay, because they aren't on things anyone would challenge. I think our disagreement here stems from differing definitions of "professional level of sourcing." However, all that said, I'll add them. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 04:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Well in the peer review I wrote "The interior section, the second sentence of services, and the whole Ordinaries section need references to reliable sources." but you chose not to add them. Then on May 8 at 12:11 I wrote (above) "...in my recent peer review of this article I pointed out many places that need references. Please add them in the next three days or I will oppose." Later that same day at 18:23 I wrote "In the Interior section, the whole second, third, fifth, and sixth paragraphs have no refs and need them." Then at 22:36 the same day I gave you two examples of what I think are good model articles, which are much more detailed and have better referencing. I am not sure how to make myself any clearer - this is too much material not to have references, especially for FA (but I would say even for a GA).
You said above that you were not being argumentative, so I will assume good faith and explain what kind of sourcing I think this article needs. FAs in the last few years are extensively referenced - a ref is understood to apply to all previous sentences in the paragraph, back to the previous ref. A new paragraph needs new refs, even if they are repeated from previous paragraphs. There are generally very few sentences without refs in an FA. The Interior section in this article has six paragaphs, but four of them still have no refs whatsoever. They need refs - I would not pass this as a GA without more refs. It is not a question of some magical ratio of refs to text, but rather the question is "Are almost all statements in the articles sourced to reliable, published third-party references?" I do not yet see that here.
As I have also said before, the article does not seem to me to be comprehensive, which is a FA criterion too. I will point out those areas soon. Ruhrfisch><>°° 12:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Comprehensiveness and MOS issues
Please see WP:WIAFA "1b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" Here are the questions I still have after reading the article, as well as some MOS issues
The German concession ended in 1914 - what were the Germans still doing in Qingdao to build a cathedral in the early 1930s?
The article has some geographic uncertainties - while Shandong and Qingdao's location within it are mentioned, the alternate spelling "Shantung" is not explained. As a result statements like "Its first mission was established in 1882 on Southern Shantung, China, a district of over 10 million people, which contained 158 Catholics." are unclear.
One of the hallmarks of a FA is that all the little details are taken care of, like naming and spelling things consistently. In two paragraphs the article has links to the "Apostolic Vicariate of Southern Shantung" and "Vicariate Apostolic of Southern Shan-tung" - pick one version of the name and use it consistenly. Also watch WP:OVERLINKing as both of these are linked or redirects to the current diocese article.
When the Divine Word Missionaries acturally arrive in Qingdao (as opposed to Shandong itself)?
While the Japanese conquest of the city in 1914 is mentioned, it would help provide context to the reader to mention that this was part of World War I, and that this effectivley ended the German concession - see WP:PCR
When was the diocese of Qingdao established? The section on Ordinaries lists the first Ordinary as beginning in 1925, but does not make it clear if he was a bishop as well.
When did the Japanese occupation during WWII end?
There is a 20 year gap from the Marin Band on the steps (1946) to the Cultural Revolution starting (1966)
What year were the crosses removed?
What happened to the congregation during the Cultural Revolution?
Are the names of the artists who did the interior work known?
Is the artwork in the interior the original (from 1934, perhaps restored) or was it necessary to completely redecorate the interior?
The Ordinaries section is very bare bones - can more details be added about the individual bishops or what they did?
That helps quite a bit, actually. Let me answer a couple questions here, and then ask one: (1) There is no information on what year the crosses were removed, after extensive searches in both English and Chinese. The names of the artists of the interior work are not known. The original stained glass is all gone, replaced with regular glass that has had stained-glass style murals painted over it (there is not a reference for this, just a personal observation), and I'm sure most of the original statues were destroyed. One can see crowbar marks on the edges of some of the stonework in certain places. Most everything inside the church is from the 1981 restoration, so artists names are not known. (2) There is no specific information about "the congregation" during the Cultural Revolution, just a general description of what happened to religion in general. My question is: are not having these two pieces of information going to stop this from being a FA? I think I can provide most of the rest. ɳorɑfʈTalk! 23:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It is hard to say what is essential for a FA. I would not say in advance that the article must have this - sometimes the sources are just not there. Some thoughts. Are there any new reports from 1981 when the cathedral reopened? Seems like they might be a source of useful information (though I doubt they would be online). Also I think that some general information on churches in the Cultural Revolution would be useful (though specifics would be even better). Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not read Chinese, but tried Google to translate a few of the online Chinese sources. Please look more carefully at these - they give the area of the church, the fact that it is shaped like a Latin cross, mention the rose window visible on the facade, describe some of the constuction materials (sounds like reinforced concrete and granite), mention the red tiles on the tower rooves, mention stained glass windows, Italian Renaiisanance decorations, etc.
The function of the building is important too - the fact that the Chinese government paid for the restoration is mentioned in one of the Chinese sources. More could be said about the power struggles between the Vatican and Beijing - based just on the what is in the article arleady, a careful reader can learn that the cathedral reopened in 1981, but without a papal mandate for the bishop, then there is an eight year gap with no bishop, then the current bishop is appointed in 2000 but does not arrive in town until 2005 - this should all be explained in more detail.
I have noted places before where times need to be given, but will be explicit about two - the 6 AM services by that early rising bishop need some qualification - as of 2010, or since 2004 (if he has been doing this since coming to Qingdao). Also search for words like current or currently and fix those (Joseph Li Mingshu (Appointed 2000) Note: Oversaw the diocese from Beijing until 2005. Currently lives in Qingdao.)