Talk:Kirkpatrick Chapel/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 14:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Henry, I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow in the next 1-4 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've made my first pass and this looks fairly good so far. The article is thorough and for the most part well-sourced, and this seems like a likely candidate for promotion. Thanks again for all your work on it.

Areas I'd like to work on here are copyediting and a few bits that may be original research. I did a fair amount of cleanup as I went, but couldn't resolve all the issues myself; remaining action points are below. Errors get by all of us, of course (especially me!), but next time before nominating you might give an additional readthrough or consider asking for a look from the WP:GOCE; a few of the changes I've made might be judgement calls or minor tweaks, but there's also a fair amount of missing punctuation, missing words, and some just plain garbled text. I'd also like your thoughts if some of the points I list are original research.


 * "He studied for five years as an apprentice draftsman under German-American architect Detlef Lienau" -- is this Hardenbergh or his grandfather? I'm assuming the former?
 * Done - Yes, hardenbergh, not janeway. corrected. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * " later would several hotels and skyscrapers in American cities" -- missing verb here
 * Done added "design" --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * " he asserts reflects reflecting" -- this appears three times in the footnotes-- Am I just having trouble parsing this, or is this an error?
 * Done removed "which he asserts reflects" --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "including Old Queen's, Geology Hall, and Kirkpatrick Chapel" -- earlier Old Queens was written without this apostrophe--which is correct?
 * Done Sources vary, but grammatically and historically, it should bear an apostrophe --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "In the application for inclusion on the National Register, alumnus Michael C. Barr and architecture professor Edward Wilkens described the chapel as "similar to an English country church,"" -- it would be helpful to note in-text what year this application happened, to reorient us to this jump in time
 * Reply: The section begins stating that it was included on the National Register in 1973. Does that suffice?--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Yep, that's fine. Someone reading at regular speed (as opposed to line-editing speed, as I was) would retain that two paragraphs later.


 * "This might not have been an accident—as the ready, cheap availability of lumber in the United States inspired a distinctly American version of the Gothic Revival style either incorporating wood, or constructing intricate buildings entirely out of wood (as in the Carpenter Gothic style).[34]" -- this seems to be original research--is it possible to find a source discussing Rutgers that shares this speculation/comparison?
 * Done I removed the sentence. No source available, I remember checking for more on architectural details, seeking appropriate reliable sources, but sadly there aren't enough sources and the sources available are not adequately descriptive.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Similarly, the former library that is presently part of the expanded chapel (as of 1916) was "finished with open-timbered roof in the native wood" was the chapel." -- I'm lost as to what this means--what is the "was the chapel" doing on the end?
 * Done (probably was an ugly "as was the chapel" appendage) --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "President Campbell " -- should have full name (and wikilink if we've got an article on him)
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "According to a survey by the U.S. Bureau of Education" -- what year was this survey--immediately after completion?
 * Done added 1876. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Chimes were added and some repair work on reeds was completed in 1931, and releathering in 1957" -- I assume we're back to talking about the Rutgers organ here? Perhaps specify, since we were talking about other organs in the last sentence.
 * Done Rephrased. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Despite DiIonno's article mentioning only the elder Rev. Frelinghuysen, the inscription on the Charter Window states that it was given "In Memory of Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen and his sons Theodorus Frelinghuysen, John Frelinghuysen."" -- seems to be original research. Do you have any sources contradicting DiIonno? Or is this just a first-hand report? I realize this is one of those frustrating moments, since this can be verified in person, but we do have to stick with the published accounts.
 * Reply Source contradicting is the window itself. Click on the image of the charter window and you can read the text on the bottom of the window--luckily that the source is available at the article for any reader to check. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - I addressed this by clarifying the note (formerly fn.46, now note "c"). Let me know if this is acceptable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * " It is likely this number has increased as McCormick's tabulation was published before most of the Vietnam War (1961–1975), and the alumni who were killed in action during recent conflicts in the Middle East (2001–present)." -- this seems like original research/speculation; do either of these sources mention the chapel's service book?
 * I don't consider this OR, just a statement of obvious fact that any reasonable person would notice in considering that McCormick published his book in 1966...10 more years of Vietnam and two other wars followed. It's a statement of something obvious that isn't a synthesis. The two sources only are lists of other alumni KIA during war, one connected to plans for a Vietnam memorial (which in those committee minutes mention a chapel plaque as an idea), the other a few killed recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. I provide the two sources for this only to establish that more have died in since 1966 when McCormick counted it for print last.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not that I doubt that further Rutgers alums were KIA, but I'm less comfortable speculating as to whether the tradition of putting plaques up for them continued--and anyway, it seems unnecessary to do so. I've asked at WP:OR/N for a quick second opinion on these points and will see what feedback I get over the next day or two. I don't expect this to be a dealbreaker for GA status. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood, and thanks for reaching out to resolve that question. It is salient to note, the reference of there likely being more KIA alumni only refers to McCormick's tabulation. Not to a plaque or the placing of a plaque. It's basically stating that McCormick counted in 1966, there have been more that have died since--and I point to those since.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - I revised this passage to reduce the feeling that it was "conjecture" and make it sound more definitive.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's definitely a help. I plan to give the noticeboard another 24 hours to chime in; if they don't, we'll take that as tacit approval that those lines aren't a problem. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I'm surprised we haven't heard from anyone on the subject.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for this quality contribution. The action points above seem like things that can quickly be dealt with, then I'll do source and image checks, and then we'll be all set. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Observer comments
Comments
 * The section on the architecture has a very long paragraph on Brownstone giving its dates, its origins etc etc etc. This all belongs in the article on Brownstone, not in this article. It reads as superfluous padding, added to bolster a section that is light on architectural description.   I have not removed it but have hidden it. The article reads much better without it.
 * Facts.
 * When describing the architecture, the building itself is your primary document. Describe what is there, using the correct architectural terminology, (which anyone can acquire on Wikipedia) Architecture of cathedrals and great churches and associated articles.  Use the references to guide you and to reference what you describe.  The description needs to give encyclopedic facts. The admiring comments made by writers usually tell about the quality, not the construction.
 * Basic: The church is constructed of....  It is oriented east west?   It faces Yeah Square.  It is ? metres long and wide.  It has a porch that is ...?  It has a tower/spire/bellcote? It is in the ?Gothic? style.  (Identify the style as Lancet Gothic, Decorated Gothic, Flamboyant Gothic or Perpendicular. See English Gothic architecture)
 * Next: Interior: if it is divided by columns, then it has a nave and aisles. (The aisles are the side bits, not the centre passage). What are the columns like? You have that vital piece of information.  State the information about the columns, before you get onto what it is that they are holding up.  Given that they are cast, how much more of the structural members of the building are iron, rather than wood?  Is there a significant comment about how the technology fits into the era, given that Gothic Revival buildings generally had stone columns?
 * Next: Some description of fittings and decoration: windows, furnishing.
 * The comment "This might not have been an accident" are seriously inappropriate. It suggests that the architect was such a dumb designer that it was only by pure chance that the material he chose gave a gave a light delicate effect.

You have everything that you need in your quotations to write the architectural description much better and more encyclopedically than it is now.

''In the application for inclusion on the National Register, alumnus Michael C. Barr and architecture professor Edward Wilkens described the chapel as "similar to an English country church," while calling attention to its lancet windows and "a particularly graceful interior of wood" that boasted "light, delicate proportions."[27] This might not have been an accident—the ready, cheap availability of lumber in the United States inspired a distinctly American version of the Gothic Revival style either incorporating wood, or constructing intricate buildings entirely out of wood (as in the Carpenter Gothic style).[34] In an 1878 book describing the nation's major colleges, one author described the interior of the chapel as "exceedingly beautiful, having a roof of open timber, finished in black walnut and stained pine, resting for its center support on slender iron columns painted to correspond with the delicately tinted walls."[35] Similarly, the former library that is presently part of the expanded chapel (as of 1916) was "finished with open-timbered roof in the native wood" was the chapel.[35]''

Amandajm (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply @Amandajm: Sorry, but the level of detail that you're asking for is not available in any sources beyond the information I've already included that is supported by the sources available. Further, for me to engage in a description absent such sources would violate WP:OR. Since there are no reliable sources giving that level of detail, and because I am not going to dabble in original research territory, I must decline to address your comments concerning those areas. In the meantime, when I can sort through some of the disjointed syntax of your suggestions, I will look into the matter regarding brownstone and try to decipher the rest separating the actionable objective comments from subjective musings on matters of preferences. Further, as you are not the reviewer, I will address only the comments that Khazar2 considers as actionable. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Amanda's trims to the discussion of brownstone are good. It didn't rise to the level of a GA criteria problem IMO but I agree it reads better with a little less discussion. As for the rest, I'm not sure the type of rewrite being proposed here is necessary for GA purposes. The criteria require that "main aspects" be covered but also note that "articles that do not cover every major fact or detail" are acceptable. Items like the chapel's compass orientation seem to me to fall under the latter. But if you'd like to do some reorganizing or expansion here, Amanda, it's your prerogative to do so--thanks for the added input. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done Removed brownstone material. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are going to discuss a significant work of architecture at GA level, then it definitely requires more than it's got. The factts are there, but they are not written as encyclopedic facts.
 * Amandajm (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Amandajm (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your revisions. However, considering there are no sources available to go into the level of detail you're expecting/demanding, and the sources cited already support the depth of discussion presenting the subject's major aspects, going beyond those available sources to speculate or provide additional information would violate policies on verifiability and verge on original research (and thus fail criteria 2b and 2c) . As for not GA level, the criteria state that the writing be "clear and concise" (1a) while addressing major aspects (3a) but avoiding unnecessary detail (3b). I'm going to disagree with your assessment because of statements already made above regarding the criteria concerning breadth and detail, and because "not written as encyclopaedic facts" doesn't mean much to me when there are no objective or specific issues pointed out vis-à-vis their application per the criteria. It makes your opinion just that...opinion. And opinions are generally worthless if not supported with facts. --ColonelHenry (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)