Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanford Memorial Church/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 Karanacs 15:20, 5 May 2009.

Stanford Memorial Church

 * Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it fulfills all the criteria to become an FA. It is an accessible article (especially its "Architecture" and "Organs" sections) with an interesting story. As its main editor, the way "MemChu" drew me in was a surprise, and a great joy. Promoting this article would greatly serve the Wikipedia community, since there are relatively few FAs about architecture and even fewer about church buildings. MemChu is a beautiful, awe-inspiring church in a very unlikely location, Stanford University, so beautiful that it was hard to avoid the peacock terms, but I believe that we were successful. Thanks for the consideration. --Christine (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In years past, only alumni could be married at MemChu; this page doesn't say if that is still the case. Can that be sorted?  It reads now as if anyone can be married there.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done extensive research on MemChu, and this is the first I've heard of this. I would agree that the source you cite does read as you interpret it.  Not even User:Erp, a Stanford student and/or alum, has brought this up, and she's been my main "researcher" for this article, filling in information and sources I've been unable to dig up.  Until there's a source, there should be no mention of this, of course. --Christine (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone doesn't track it down, I'll call to find out if this has changed recently. It should be sorted; perhaps User:Erp is too young to remember.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Current policy is only people with an affiliation to the University can be married there (alum, full-time student, regular staff, current faculty, established member of the congregations (catholic or the main church) or child of these). Similar policy also applies to memorial services. Weddings also include mandatory pre-marital counseling. They are having a wedding faire this Saturday which is apparently driving them frantic. My guess is that the policy has always been similar (i.e., it was never solely students and alums) --Erp (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what the policy has always been; can it be somewhat clarified that only persons affiliated with Stanford can be married there? It reads as if anyone can "hire" MemChu, which is not the case.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've modified and added references to more specific info. I didn't go into specifics beyond affiliation in the article as that I suspect is too much detail (plus I suspect there is a bit of give,  if a university trustee wants the wedding of his niece in MemChu, I suspect he gets his way).--Erp (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I made some minor changes as well. Man, it's expensive to get married at MemChu! --Christine (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that specifically naming Mary Gallagher, the wedding coordinator, is bordering on Trivia; not sure that's needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yah, but....she is staff; would mentioning Robert Huw Morgan, the organist, also be Trivia? Or any of the chaplains? --Christine (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Images The stained glass gallery images should be cropped to remove the dark area of little interest. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I hesitate to do this, since I'm not the original photographer. And to be honest, I'm not sure this is necessary. --Christine (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess its the difference between what is acceptable and what is best practice Fasach Nua (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Multiple references contain the content "Harvey, p. 7" so a reference name should be used for all of them.
 * Um, according to the search I just did, all of these instances already have a ref name. Could you please list the instances for me, in case I've missed them? --Christine (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that references 6 and 40 need publishers.
 * I fixed #6, but #40 is giving me problems. The code lists the publisher (Stanford Historical Society), but for some reason it's not showing up in the text.  Perhaps it's because it's a PDF document?  Someone more knowledgeable about this needs to solve this problem, please. --Christine (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if you can find an author for ref 10.
 * No, I cannot. ;) The original newspaper article listed no author, according to Erp.--Christine (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please fix the 5 disambiguation links
 * Done. Scartol  •  Tok  21:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And Scar missed a couple, which I got! --Christine (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * According to this you have not made any contributions to this article. Mm40 (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you hold your mouse over the word "Christine", you'll see that it links to her username, — the one who made 222 edits.  Scartol  •  Tok  21:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry for the trouble. Mm40 (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, dat's me! First time anyone's had a problem with it.   Thanks for the comments.  Picky, I like; it means that this article is in good shape. ;) --Christine (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Exhaustively researched, engagingly written, lovingly illustrated. Nice work on this one, Christine/Figureskatingfan! Scartol •  Tok  21:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This "although" isn't working, and the "as a result" doesn't follow:
 * Although the Stanfords were religious, but not formally committed to any Christian denomination, they viewed "spiritual and moral values as essential to a young person's education and future citizenship". As a result, Jane Stanford decreed, from the beginning of Stanford Memorial Church's history, that the church be non-denominational.

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it is proper etiquette to give an example of rewording on this page. Would "Although the Stanfords were religious and viewed "spiritual and moral values as essential to a young person's education and future citizenship", they were not formally committed to any Christian denomination.  As a result, Jane Stanford decreed, from the beginning of Stanford Memorial Church's history, that the church be non-denominational."  work better? (I don't think we actually have in the article the 1966 revision to Founding Grant [which required petitioning the courts] that allowed denominational services such as Catholic or Jewish in MemChu and elsewhere on campus, I'll get the notes to Christine)Erp (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's OK to just make whatever adjustments might help without reviewing them here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I added Erp's info about the above a couple of days ago, but forgot to report it. I have now added it, thanks again Erp. --Christine (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The article text needs close examination for following the structure and phrasing of sources too closely. (See Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches; Awadewit might be able to review for this.) I saw quite a bit of this, just picking one example from the lead and one other:


 * Source

The church itself and much of the original campus was designed by 28 year old architect Charles A. Coolidge, a protege of Henry Hobson Richardson who had championed a Romanesque style with carved natural stone, massive columns, low rounded arch ways and red tiled roofs. The cruciform design (see the church plan) of the church (190 feet in length and 150 feed in width) incorporated an impressive clock and bell tower with an 80 foot spire.


 * Article text

Designed by architect Charles A. Coolidge, a protegé of Henry Hobson Richardson, the church has been called "the University's architectural crown jewel".[1]

The building is Romanesque in style, with carved natural stone, massive columns, low rounded archways, red tiled roofs, and a cruciform design.

The Stanfords, who were religious, but not committed to any denomination, decreed that the church was also to be non-denominational. Adopting such a philosophy, they felt, would permit the church to serve the broadest spiritual needs of the university community. The Stanfords also saw spiritual and moral values as essential to a young person's education and future citizenship.
 * Source

Although the Stanfords were religious, but not formally committed to any Christian denomination, they viewed "spiritual and moral values as essential to a young person's education and future citizenship". As a result, Jane Stanford decreed, from the beginning of Stanford Memorial Church's history, that the church be non-denominational. She believed that adopting this philosophy would "serve the broadest spiritual needs of the university community".
 * Text

Perhaps Awadewit will have a look. I also see that the sources add a sentence clarifying Leland Jr. vs. his father, founding of the University vs. MemChu; I think that one sentence would be helpful to readers unfamiliar with Stanford, who may confuse father and son. The article alludes to the death of the Stanfords' son without ever discussing it. The article could also benefit from some discussion of the placement of MemChu on campus in relation to the Quad. I'm also wondering why there is no picture of the interior of the church, other than the windows. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sandy, I totally get what you're saying. The surprise for me is that you're the first one to say this kind of thing.  I admit that when I'm unfamiliar with a topic, like architecture and organs, my writing tends to parallel the original source.  Although how else can you say that Coolidge was a protegé of Richardson?  And the list you mention: how differently can you describe the church's red tiled roofs?  I know that I've read something somewhere about this, but not knowing enough about WP policies, I can't remember where.  Do you think that there's plagiarism in this article?  If so, that's pretty serious, and something needs to be done about it.  That being said, Awadewit participated in this article's peer review, and she never said anything about it.  We've all worked hard at making certain sections, like the above-mentioned Architecture and Organs sections, both accessible for readers new to the topics addressed and clear for experts.  I believe we've made a good attempt and been successful. --Christine (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest asking Awadewit to specifically look at this issue (I wouldn't label it as "plagiarism", as that's a loaded word, but she knows more on the topic than I do). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see my name popping up here. I did not review this aspect of the article before, but I will do so now. Awadewit (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Stanford Memorial Church/archive1. Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As per your suggestion, I added information about Leland Jr. in two places: in a note at the beginning of the article, in the "History" section, and again when he's mentioned regarding the stained glass window that honors him in the "Interior" section. I have also added the church's exact placement.  Please understand, though, that I've never even been on campus, so it'd be great if one of you who has could make sure that the sentence sounds coherent.  To answer your final question: the reason there are no images of the church's interior was that there are no free images available.  The Hall book (which is a great little resource, btw) has images of the interior of the original church, though.  Since it was published in 1917, it's public domain, so we could use them.  (That's where I got the first image in the "History" section.)  Do you suggest that we do that? --Christine (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you asked the church if they will release a current image of the interior? This is the kind of work that went into Ima Hogg and Museum of Bad Art, for example-- writing to them and asking for an image.  Without it, the article doesn't do justice to the church.  Also, anyone who was married there has one taken from the balcony.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All interior wedding photos have to be done by a professional photographer (Church policy so the ceremony isn't disrupted by random photos) and professionals tend to be very protective of the copyright on their pictures. I'll see what I can do through other means.  So we want one general interior picture ideally perhaps taken from the organ loft looking towards the altar and one good picture of the Last Supper mosaic (the best mosaic in the church) behind the altar? --Erp (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Some discussion of the breadth and comprehensiveness of this article in relation to other articles like Beth Hamedrash Hagadol (Manhattan, New York), Congregation Beth Elohim (Brooklyn, New York), Netley Abbey, and St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery would be helpful. The article is about the building and the church; is the congregation/membership well enough covered, as well as construction details and architecture? The discussion of these, and the church interior, seems brief. For example, the many mosaics are mentioned but hardly discussed. What is the seating capacity? The destroyed apostles that used to be in front of the niches around the altar are mentioned, but the niches aren't discussed. There seems to be a focus on staff, mosaics and organs, but gaps in other content. There's very little discussion of the damage sustained in 1989, which was significant. I can find no mention of height; did I miss that? I'm concerned that this article relies too much on what is available from websites and hasn't been thoroughly researched via other sources. By looking at pictures of the interior of the church—missing from the article—one can understand how much architectural discussion seems missing. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly certain that I can address your concerns here. Yes, you missed the height; it's in the Architecture > Layout section, the final sentence of the first paragraph.  Regarding the congregation: this church is different than most because it doesn't have a traditional congregation; it's congregation is the student body of Stanford University.  MemChu is part of the ministry of the Office for Religious Life, which serves the students, faculty, and staff.  I'd bet if you asked any of the chaplains, like all college chaplains, they'd respond that their "congregation" is everyone affiliated with the school.  One of the most exciting aspects of this article, I think, is its "Influence" section, which describes how the chaplains, especially Elton Trueblood, changed a strongly secular university that was antagonistic towards all things religious to an institution with one of the best religious studies programs in the US.  That says a great deal about MemChu's "congregation" and its influence on the campus.


 * (the following is my observation) Actually the Sunday morning congregation does contain some people whose only affiliation is through the Sunday morning service (and who also use the chaplains as pastoral advisers); it is not exactly large (except for Easter or Christmas [though Ash Wednesday got a surprisingly large turnout [admittedly that might be in part because the Catholic congregation and the Pentecostals joined in]]). I would guess the Deans see several circles (some disjoint, some intersecting, and some subsets).  (a) The regular Sunday morning congregation but no formal tally of who is in it (beyond the choir), (b) The Catholic congregation (who use MemChu, the CIRCLE, and the student union for services), (c) the other religious groups such as Chi Alpha or Hillel or the Islamic Society of Stanford (interesting bit on their history) which mostly meet in the CIRCLE rooms (except Hillel which has its own house), (d) the greater Stanford community (usually gathered for Baccalaureate or at tragedies local, national, or international [there was one for the major Chinese earthquake last year which was well attended, Stanford has students from that region]).  One question is whether this article should contain much info on the greater religious community at Stanford or concentrate only on the building?  --Erp (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article you cite about the ISSU is interesting, but it says nothing about MemChu, which brings me to my opinion about your question, Erp. This article is about the building, not about the religious communities at Stanford.  This article already mentions the church's importance to these groups, as it has influenced them.  Perhaps there needs to be another article about the communities, and their histories. --Christine (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article isn't only about the building, art and architecture; there is extensive discussion of staff. Confusing; scope of the article is unclear.  If it's only about the building, then more architectural depth is needed.  If it's about the church, more breadth is needed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "gaps in content": I respectfully disagree. The sources used range from websites (the Office of Religious Life, the Stanford Historical Society) to books to newspaper articles from the time periods it discusses.  See, I've always thought that the way that you write a Wikipedia article is you gather all the reliable sources available and construct it from them.  There are so many aspects and architectural details to the church; is it responsible to go into excruciating detail about everything?  The mosaics are mentioned twice, in the "History" section and in the Architecture > Interior section.  Hall lists each mosaic and what they depict; did you want to include that here?  (BTW, he also lists all the windows and the inscriptions.) --Christine (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, yes, a list of each mosaic is crucial. When writing about the Sistine Chapel, for example, it is imperative that each fresco be listed. The same goes for the its lesser cousin. :) If this information is available in RS, it should be included. We don't necessarily need to go into "excruciating detail", as you say, but listing the mosaics is not excessive detail - it is letting the reader who cannot go to the church what kind of art is in the building. Awadewit (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll go back to Hall and see what I can add from it. He spends a great deal of time discussing the history of mosaics and how they're made, though, which isn't appropriate for this article. --Christine (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We should probably list all the windows also perhaps mosaics and windows by each section of the church (east nave, east transept, east balcony, ...); we might want to use a sandbox until we are happy. I assume we don't want to do all the quotes (though I note the article doesn't mention the quotes at all which it should do). --Erp (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Let's fix the paraphrasing problems that SandyGeorgia has raised above and I have provided more examples of at the FAC talk page. Awadewit (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So it looks like we need to work on the paraphrasing problem and write up a list of the artwork in the church before we go farther. Perhaps we should close this nom, especially since both issues are major and will require some time. --Christine (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think there are a number of major issues here. First, is the issue of following sources too closely.  Second, the images are just not at FA quality (for example, the stained glass windows ... when the article includes sufficient architectural detail, much better images can be included in each section, and the gallery should be eliminated.  An image of the interior of the church is needed, as well ... there is too much left out ... what about the "Faith" "Love" etc. mosaics on the outside?  Free Flickr images are available.).  Third, the article is simply not comprehensive; it is lacking in breadth and depth.  Please compare to the other FAs that I linked earlier in the FAC, and note that these other FAs include comprehensive discussions of the building as well as the church.  Fourth, there is a bit of trivia in the article that could be better presented, particularly with respect to staff.  A list of every Dean could be better written into paragraphs as History.  There are MANY free images available on Flickr; I think that someone who hasn't been on campus might have a hard time envisioning all that could be and should be written about MemChu (for example, location on campus in relation to the Quad, and there is still scanty detail on the 1989 earthquake damage and resulting repairs).  This is a very fine start, and an excellent article, but it's not quite where it needs to be yet for FA quality.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - There has been mention of better illustrating the interior; I uploaded a few Flickr images (File:Stanford Memorial Church Interior 1.jpg and File:Stanford Memorial Church Interior 2.jpg), but there are tons more if folks don't fancy these. Hope this helps.  Эlcobbola  talk 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, Elc; in addition to the interiors you uploaded, there are many excellent images of architectural detail on Flickr. Some samples:
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/edbierman/3141783552/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/edbierman/3141783606/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/maveric2003/176088989/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/maveric2003/176089982/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/maveric2003/176088046/
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/edbierman/3135618746/
 * I suspect that better images of the stained glass windows can be found, or the black should be cropped out of those we're using as suggested above. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A suggestion: how about bringing in and ?  With a bit more work, this article can be truly fine.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are also multiple views of the Dome on Flickr that are superior to the one included in this article's gallery, which isn't really adding anything useful to the article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Another question for Elcobbola or Awadewit: does copyright allow us to do this? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, yes. I don't think such a basic floorplan can be copyrighted. Awadewit (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.