Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christ Church, Newton/archive1


 * 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 archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2015.

Christ Church, Newton

 * Nominator(s): JackTheVicar (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a historic church and Anglican congregation in northern New Jersey that was chartered by George III. I have nurtured the article from creation, through DYK, and it was promoted to GA by. I think the article has been improved and that FAC, the natural next step, would polish off any last burrs. I hope you enjoy! JackTheVicar (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Hi, vicar, and thanks for this interesting article. I think, however, you should standardise your use of the ecclesiastical honorific. At present you have "the Rev.", "the Reverend" and "the Rev'd". All are OK, but you should choose one and stick to it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've brought them all consistently in line with the Anglican form of "Rev'd" throughout. "Rev." kept slipping in, must be the Presbyterian influence :-). JackTheVicar (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note--the Vicar and I chatted some about formatting the references, and I'm curious to see what y'all think about it and what your suggestions are. Jack, I won't weigh in yet since it's pretty much the same version I looked at, but I'll be glad to have a look after there've been some suggestions. Feel free to ping me at that time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian

 * , as I also have a historic church up for FAC, I've taken particular interest in your article for Christ Church. First and foremost, thank you for your hard work on this article, and for submitting it here for review and promotion to FA. I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review of your article, and I assess that it meets the attributes outlined at Featured article criteria. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable; its lede meets the criteria at Manual of Style/Lead section; and it is written in an appropriate structure with consistent citations. An image review and other comments and suggestions are shared below. Thanks again for your hard work and dedication to this topic. -- West Virginian   (talk)  22:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , upon my re-review of the article and a review of your responses, I hereby Support this article for promotion to Featured Article status. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian   (talk)  18:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tomandjerry211 (alt)
First of all, I agree with all of West Virginian's comments, and I have a few others: Otherwise, I'm happy with this article. Thanks,Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you need to put the page number outside the cite, when you just can put it in the cite?
 * Reply: That's the way the template (Template:Rp) works for some reason. Unfortunately, it's a compromise since the alternative—using cite templates—offer little flexibility to a user in writing a footnote and I'm not partial to how they format a citation, and the html citation method doesn't work well with repeated citations to a source that requires different page numbers for the relevant information being cited. the  template seems to have been designed to remedy that shortcoming with the method. The  template is not one I use. As WP:WIAFA doesn't require a specific method, and my use or ref html tags with the rp template is consistent throughout the article and in keeping with the expected use of the rp template, is there an issue?JackTheVicar (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Inconsistency: "p. 13–14, pp. 23–24", pp. is preferred by many.
 * Fixed & Reply: As Template:Rp says "Do not add "Page", "pp.", etc.—just the numbers." in its instructions, I'm removing all references to p. or pp. in the article. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Citation for the first note?
 * Fixed & Reply: I condensed information found at Episcopal Diocese of Newark and diocesan websites. Citations added.
 * Why do you have to pipe link to Christ Church (Disambiguation) (which is a redirect) instead of just directly linking to Christ Church.
 * Fixed & Reply: I removed the pipe link to the redirect. I don't know why other than that might have been the page I found when I wrote the article, but I don't remember after all these months. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI For specious reasoning, RussBot keeps changing pipelinks in hatnotes to "x (disambiguation)" even if that page is a redirect to x. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * :: Thanks for looking through the article and offering your support. JackTheVicar (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Some of the details appearing in the infobox do not appear to be sourced anywhere in the article (eg. the Director of Music). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed: Source added to two names in infobox. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we hold off on closing this as the article has been restored? I'm happy to take on the task of the final polishing for FA if the Jack is banned.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a fresh start would be better. The article can be renominated after the bot as run. Under the, unprecedented, circumstances, the customary 14 day waiting period is waived. Graham Beards (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The only concern I have is the comments in support of it would be lost on the new one if that was done.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 22:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is my decision, sorry. Usually reviewers watchlist articles and return to subsequent FACs. There would not be any problems in your leaving a neutrally-worded reminder on their page should this not be the case. Graham Beards (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.