Wikipedia:Featured article review/Templon/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 22:02, 22 December 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Editor: The PNM (Inactive since May 2010), Projects: Christianity Architecture

Article was promoted in 2005 and suffers from not being kept up to standards. Talk page notice was given in December 2010.
 * 1a A word to describe the prose is "narrative". The reader is being spoken to by the author. Vague wording is also prevalent throughout the article; with terms like "most likely" and "A more plausible theory".
 * 1c There are citation needed tags and dead links. Citations are sparse overall. Some sources need page numbers.
 * 2c Minor problems here with layout.
 * 3 File:Iconostasis in Moscow.jpg. Need more information about the file. Author and source. Is this a photo of an artwork or of the actual church itself?
 * Summary Needs rewriting; more citations and sourcing before working on the minor things. Brad (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment It is short & uses a limited range of sources by current FA standards, but "vague wording" comes with the territory in this area & should not be complained about. The tone only needs a few touches imo. The point about the image seems silly - it is a photo of a famous artwork inside a famous (but tiny) church in the Moscow Kremlin. What's the beef? Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The information needed is necessary for determining the correct license to use. You'll notice that the file uses life +70 years for a rationale but with no listed author this is an incorrect license. Life +70 also requires a US copyright tag of which there is none currently displayed. Brad (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From Cathedral of the Annunciation, "The main vault of the cathedral has a large iconostasis, which includes icons of the 14th-17th centuries, including the ones painted by Andrei Rublev, Feofan Grek and Prokhor, and 19th century, as well, particular on the middle tiers. The fifth (lowest) row is pieced by a silver door, behind which is the old staircase to the Tsar’s personal chambers." Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include prose, referencing and images. Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist 1a and 1c. Since nomination only three edits have been made to the article. Brad (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist It seems short. In particular, the one sentence paragraphs should be expanded or integrated better. Currently, they are disconnected from the rest of the article. DrKiernan (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * DrKiernan, have you found sources or information that is missing from the article, or are you left with questions that lead you to believe that the article is not comprehensive? "...seems short" is not a valid FAC criteria, and the article is actually almost twice as long as the current shortest FA (source). Dana boomer (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm left with questions, particularly on the single sentence paragraphs. If you look at the first one: "Barriers called templons in Greek were also used on occasions when the Roman Emperors appeared in public, to segregate the Imperial retinue from the crowd." The Roman empire spans nearly 500 years of history: is the later or earlier empire meant? What were the barriers made of? What type of public appearances were they? How does this relate to the Christian use? Is it purely a linguistic similarity or does the templon in a church serve a segregational purpose? Did the practice continue in the East Roman Empire into Byzantine times? In the second paragraph: "Many fragments of a marble templon have been discovered on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem." but there are no details of the building in which the templon might have stood. I need more information to relate these points to the rest of the article. DrKiernan (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


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