Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Temple Sinai (Oakland, California)/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 promoted by Karanacs 17:39, 30 March 2010.

Temple Sinai (Oakland, California)

 * Nominator(s): Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this article was already a GA, and I have recently: I feel it now meets the FA criteria. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * significantly expanded it, more than doubling its size,
 * thoroughly copyedited it,
 * updated the citations, and
 * added alt text to all of the photographs.


 * Comments. No problems in dab links, external links, or alt text. Ucucha 20:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Images check out fine, all uploaded by the nominator.
 * Sources look good—although I'm not entirely versed in the conventions needed to cite an open letter. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing that. I wasn't quite sure myself. I've made the citation a little more complete, at any rate. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments. The prose is OK; needs an independent run-through if I can find things like this. I think the nomination is FA material.
 * Thank you! Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "That year the current sanctuary was built, a Beaux-Arts structure designed by G. Albert Lansburgh that is the oldest synagogue in Oakland." Two "thats". Try "In the same year,...", or change the second one to "which"; or "... Lansburgh—the oldest ...", if you don't mind the interrupter.
 * Fixed; I preferred the second option. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "It has since been led ...", and cut the "then".
 * Cut. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Groundbreaking took place in October 2007"—ah, I see, "groundbreaking" refers to the turning of the first sod? It might be unusual for some readers.
 * I've added a link to the groundbreaking article, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "... from a number of countries, but predominantly Polish Jews from Posen." The "but" prepares us to be told something that is unexpected or contrastive; but it doesn't fulfill that promise here. "... countries—predominantly ..."?
 * It was intended to contrast with "a number of countries", but I've replaced it with the emdash, per your suggestion. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "including adding" ... ungainly. "including the addition of"?
 * Fixed. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove comma after "objected" to avoid a bumpy ride. The comma after minyan could also go, followed by "that". It's up to you (a certain personal latitude in the use of some commas), but I'd remove the comma after 1891, since there's another in the vicinity. I do find some of them intrusive.
 * Commas removed. I also replaced a couple with emdashes, to further reduce the number. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "However, he did not get along with"?
 * Fixed. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Soon after he was hired, California experienced another economic downturn"—have we been told about the first one? And here I think you do need a comma before "which"; otherwise, the meaning is unintended, I think (subset of all such economic downturns). "negatively impacted" is a bit ugly, isn't it?
 * Yes, a few paragraphs earlier the article says due to a severe recession in California at the time, the congregation did not construct a building until 1878. I've added the missing comma, and replaced "negatively impacted" with "hurt the finances of". How does that sound? Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 95 but eighteen. Where's your boundary for spelling out? Tony   (talk)  11:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My intent here was to spell out single words, and use numbers for two words or more, but I'm quite open to other views. What would you suggest? Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * The "Bylaws" reference needs a publisher
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I've added a publisher for the "Bylaws" reference. Jayjg (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Monetary conversions need to say "equivalent to $X in 2010), rather than "today", which may escape the attention of the guardians of the article, who would need to update yearly.
 * The conversions are done "on the fly" via a Wikipedia function that is updated on a yearly basis, so "today" will always be accurate. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 08:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think it's a bit overlinked. "pipe organ"? I haven't checked the "Dome" article, but I hope it's sufficiently relevant and informative to most readers in this context, since we're supposed to know what a dome is. If there's a section or daughter article on "Synagogue domes" or the like ... SURE! But otherwise, let's be conservative. "Bible" as the pipe for Tanakh: I worry that readers will pass over it, thinking it's just the article on the bible alone, rather than something more specialised. (But I can live with that one.) I would not link "Word War I/II" in this context; rarely, in fact, and I see them linked all over the place in the most unlikely contexts as a formulaic wikilink. "Disarmament", "birth control", etc ... we do speak English.
 * Yeah, I like links, perhaps too much. I've fixed the examples you brought. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 08:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Update: I've unlinked several other words too. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Approximately" is such an ugly word, isn't it. I encourage "about". But that's personal.
 * Changed. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 08:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy, do others complain about the wrapping of ref tags? I think it's something the developers at WikiMedia should be approached about. I get "... $2.2 million). [2][4][5]".

Or is it peculiar to my OS and platform?
 * If you don't mind my jumping in, on my browser they're always kept together, never wrapped. Regardless, to make it easier on the reader I've gone through the article and combined and streamlined multiple refs in many places. The reader should now never see more than two refs side by side, and most points are supported by one citation. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I support this nomination on the basis of the writing, even though people are saying I've gone soft. Tony  (talk)  07:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support! Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 08:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - Extremely thorough, giving not only a material but a social history. This is everything we look for in a featured article. Shii (tock) 00:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments beginning a read-through. Feel free to revert any changes I inadvertently make to meaning. I will jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: The queries are not deal-breakers - they'd be good to fix or otherwise note as impossible, but I think we're over the line now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is "foreign-born merchants" in quotes? Seems an odd choice to place as such.


 * ... from a number of countries'' - only Poland is mentioned - are they all from Europe, in which case, specifying Europe or Central/Eastern Europe would be good.


 * He petitioned that they be excused, but the superintendent and district went even further, and directed teachers not to schedule examinations for those days - this I don't get - I thought the not scheduling of examination was something desired by Levy, but the way that this setence comes straight after one which says "come into conflict" sounds odd. I guess I was expecting some oppositional statement to qualify the conflict before this (?) resolution (?)


 * successfully resisted  - why not just say "declined"?


 * The structure had "Moorish elements inspired by Isaac Mayer Wise's Plum Street Temple in Cincinnati". - be nice if this could be phrased without needing quotation marks.


 * The two short sentences about Morris Sessler just sorta sit there. I doubt they'd sit well tacked onto the previous para. Is there any material which can be added? i.e. did they look for a more liberal rabbi? Was Sessler one? why did he not get on with the congrgation, how did they choose him etc. Doesn't have to be much but would help the flow.


 * In 1893, the congregation hired Marcus Friedlander of Congregation Baith Israel in Brooklyn, New York. - ditto here. A couple of words on how they chose him (if possible) would be good. Not a deal-breaker though if the info ain't there.


 * Friedlander and former congregation president Abraham Jonas influenced the congregation --> "persuaded" a better verb here??


 * an "elliptical dome", and an entrance characterized by "graceful Corinthian columns supporting a Greco-Roman portico". - aargh, more quotations - the first you could just say oval dome and de-quote - I agree second might be trickier...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Temple Sinai hired Harvey B. Franklin as rabbi in 1917, but his tenure there was only two years - again a stubby para, and again this leaves one wondering why. A concluding sentence/expalantion would round off the section nicely.


 * I combined the stubby paras in the Stern era: 1934–1965 section, but could split out the last two sentences if there was any info to add (e.g. how he died)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.