Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Santa Maria de Ovila/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 not promoted by GrahamColm 20:15, 24 February 2012.

Santa Maria de Ovila

 * Nominator(s): Binksternet (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been letting this one sit for a while to see how it fits, and I think it is ready for evaluation here at FAC. The article came about when I protested a bit of text inserted at Hearst Castle, text that was more appropriate to Wyntoon. This led me to write articles about Santa Maria de Ovila and Charles Stetson Wheeler, and to greatly expand Wyntoon.

This story is a complex and tragic tale and as such proved excellent material for an article. Binksternet (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am an entrant in the WikiCup. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review and comments by --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The caption of File:Haslett Warehouse (San Francisco).jpg should end with a period since it's a sentence.
 * Can English captions be added to File:Ruinas ovila.jpg, File:Cartel Santa Maria de Ovila Trillo.jpg, and File:Santa Maria de Ovila actualidad.jpg? The dates of these photos are missing.
 * File:Haslett Warehouse (San Francisco).jpg has its image size forced.
 * The ISBN is missing from the second book under "Bibliography". Or is it not a book?
 * Why isn't FN 2 moved to the "Bibliography" section?
 * FN 18 and 27 are missing retrieval dates.


 * Sp33dyphil, I have put a full stop at the Haslett image and I changed the second bibliography entry from a book to a journal cite. Thanks for the catch!
 * I have put dates and English descriptions into the Commons images that were uploaded by a Spanish editor.
 * The Haslett warehouse is not all that important which is why I chose to force the image smaller.
 * Is the accessdate parameter required for the cite news template? Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You should include retrieval dates if URLs are provided, unless the refs are print-based like books. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added accessdate parameters as indicated and I moved the Burke reference down to Bibliography. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the article, but a couple quick comments at a glance: in the Golden Gate Park section I see sentences beginning "In 1940, Hearst..." and "In 1999 some..." The punctuation here should probably be standardized. Also, why do you have a picture in the Bibliography section? I don't know if there is a rule about that, but it seems odd to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I put commas in to homogenize the style.
 * I put a picture into the Bibliography only because I had an extra one and it seemed to fit there. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, well, if no one else objects to its placement I guess that's ok. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, try to be consistent with the use of the serial comma: "After the Confiscations, many of the furnishings and artistic treasures of Santa María de Óvila passed to the surrounding parish churches, especially Ruguilla, Huet, Sotoca de Tajo and Carrascosa de Tajo." vs "On the eastern side of the cloister lies the monastery, the sacristy, the priory cell, and the chapter house stripped of detail." Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the commas. I took a couple out just now but the specific example you list is one I kept because the sacristy and priory cell are not stripped of detail, but the chapter house is. Thus, the comma helps to separate the "stripped of detail" from the preceding members of the listed items. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, your changes look good to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The article was raised to GA nearly a year ago, and not much work has been done on the text since. This means that there are numerous prose issues (and a few others) that would probably have been identified had the article had a recent peer review. I have so far only read through to the end of the "Hearst" section and have found the following:-
 * Of the stones, "some are being reassembled by Trappist monks at the Abbey of New Clairvaux in Vina." Reassembled into what?
 * I'm not sure the beer sponsorship is worthy of the lead
 * "within", rather than "on", the grounds of a farm
 * I think the lead image caption could be usefully extended, giving a date and confirming this is after the removal of stones by Hearst's agents.
 * I think "canonised", rather than "sainted", is the official term, but in any event link to canonisation
 * "Somewhat later, or perhaps at the same time..." I find that phrasing odd, a bit like "yes, or perhaps no". I would omit this confusing phrase
 * Date for chapel rebuilding?
 * "From the 15th century Santa María de Óvila began a slow decline..." Yes, but in the previous section we read of major building projects into the mid-17th century, so isn't it a little premature to date the start of the decline so early?
 * Hyphenate "wine-making"
 * I think the section title "Hearst" is a little too cryptic for the content, and should be amplified, even if only to "Hearst project".
 * "his biggest client being" → "whose biggest client was"
 * You need some sort of citation for the assertion that $97,000 in 1930 has a current value of £1.2 million (seems rather low), and "today's currency" needs to be time specific, e.g. "as of 2012".
 * "Some entire walls of fine facing stones were recommended". Sentence is incomplete; "recommended" for what?
 * "Antonio Gomez, the excellent local foreman praised by all who worked with him, numbered the blocks on architectural drawings and painted the number in red on the back of each stone."[4] This, particularly the unattributed description of Gomez, reads like editorial opinion. What the source actually says is "Steilberg and Byne both commented on the excellence of the Spanish workers and especially of their foreman, Antonio Gomez." I think there needs to be some rewording to better reflect the source, and to remove the appearance of an editorial voice.
 * "he understood that the illegal project employed more than a hundred men..." You need to clarify that "he" is the Minister of Labor, not Byne's lawyer (which is how it reads at present).
 * "failing to interest the government" → "but had failed to interest the government"

I will read through the rest after you have responded to the above. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Replies
 * The stones have been given extra context in the lead section, addressing the problem.
 * The beer sponsorship is a valid part of WP:LEAD, being a one-sentence summary of article material comprising a paragraph. The beer sponsorship has been widely reported and has significantly aided in the rebuilding of the chapter house in Vina.
 * Within the grounds of the farm, yes.
 * Lead image caption has been amplified as suggested.
 * Yes, canonized with wikilink.
 * "Somewhat ...perhaps" removed.
 * Chapel rebuilding date uncertain, before 1650 per Clements 1981.
 * 15th century corrected to 17th century.
 * Hyphen for wine-making.
 * I changed the "Hearst" heading to "Removal to California". "Hearst project" was a good suggestion, too.
 * Yes to "whose biggest client was".
 * "fine facing stones were recommended for removal"
 * Gomez praise attributed.
 * Minister of Labor clarified.
 * Yes to "but had failed to interest the government".
 * The suggestions are very good. Thank you, really! The only one I am resisting is the bit about beer sponsorship which I think is appropriate for WP:LEAD. I have no financial or personal conflict of interest in the sponsorship, to be sure. I have, however, tasted one of the batches produced. Binksternet (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "American millionaire William Randolph Hearst .." - a more descriptive/informative adjective might be "publisher" instead of millionaire.  The fact he was able to buy/ship the stones already indicates he was wealthy.
 * " the original ruins are within...." - The word "original" confuses me. Perhaps delete it?
 * "... by Trappist monks at the Abbey of New Clairvaux in Vina...." - Need to say that is in California; it sounds like a European place name (although I see the Golden Gate Park, it still is confusing).
 * "The surrounding area of Murel and ... their cattle to graze on the king's land." - Needs a citation.
 * It would be great if there were a sketch/diagram of the monastery before it was disassembled ... are any available? I see the article says ".. he wrote a monograph of its history and included a site plan of the layout of buildings, written from memory."  Any chance of getting a copy of the plan from that monograph?
 * POV: "Because of its prosperity  ...",  " the nearby villagers denied support to the monastery despite..." , etc - My understanding of the history of many Catholic properties throughout Europe and Latin America is that there are two sides to the story:  On the one hand, they were legitimate enterprises, willfully created by the populace as matters of faith;  on the other hand, they were oppressive institutions that took money, goods & taxes from unwilling peasants to fund comfortable lifestyles for the abbots/priests, etc.  The article explicitly discusses the Confiscations, but the whole tenor of the article is very sympathetic to the abbey.  I think a sentence or two needs to be included representing the "other side":  why some Spaniards may have resented the abbey & supported the Confiscations.   Perhaps the Confiscations article contains some balancing material.
 * " The monastery's land holdings passed one by one into ..." - Do the sources say why?  By force?  Willingly sold off to raise $?
 * " ... artistic treasures ...." - The paragraph mentions a couple of manuscripts, but the phrase " artistic treasures" implies more to me.  Are there examples of art?  If not, perhaps reword to "historical manuscripts" or similar.
 * "Beloso sold the stones of the cloister, the chapter house ... to Arthur Byne, an art agent living in Madrid, whose biggest client was American newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst." - That paragraph is missing a key fact:  Who initiated the sale in the first place?  Did Hearst ask Byne to find a monastery?   Had Hearst seen it on earlier travels?  Or did Byne just buy it on his own initiative, based on his knowledge of Hearts's tastes?
 * "Up to this time, the ...." a bit ambiguous: could mean until today; or to 1931.  Reword?
 * "Little remains today of the original monastery in Spain. ..." -  The pictures in the article seem to indicate that a lot remains, albeit unusable.  Perhaps reword to indicate that a lot of walls still stand, but it is uninhabitable.
 * "Hearst had already bought a ..." - The italic "already" seems a bit unencyclopedic. I would just eliminate the italics; or change "already" -> "previously" or similar.
 * "... had already bought a Spanish monastery in 1925,... " - Also should be stated up above in article where Byne is first mentioned: that earlier section should state that "Hearst from the early 1920s had an interest in acquiring stone buildings from Europe to provide materials ..."
 * "drawn into direct combat in" WW II  - The "direct combat" confuses me.  I know what you mean, but many readers may be puzzled.  I would just eliminate "direct combat in".
 * " The city sued to reclaim the area in 1993, but lost the battle in court..." - I do not understand this. Arent the stones in Golden Gate park at this point?  The city obviously owns the park.  Or did the stones get moved to some private property?  Clarification is needed.
 * " to mount the grand portal of the old church. It was in March 1931 that Hearst had agreed to purchase this church portal upon Steilberg's recommendation and at Byne's price of $1,500" -   Was this part of the original $97,000 purchase? Or was this a separate deal from the "big" purchase?  Why wasnt the portal included in the $97K?
 * " deaccessioning" - Too arcane to be used without definition or explanation.
 * " partnered with the monks of New Clairvaux ..." - Need geographic context: say something like "partnered with the monks of NC in Northern California .."  etc.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.