Talk:Congregation Beth Elohim

Congregation Beth Elohim is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 18, 2008.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 18, 2006	Articles for deletion	Kept
September 13, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
October 13, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Congregation Beth Elohim/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Greetings, I am in the process of reviewing this article for GA. I'll post comments presently. Kindest, Lazulilasher (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for the delay! I've been more busy than I anticipated. I promise to finish the review today :) Lazulilasher (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, this is just a start. Overall, the article is very good. I have a few quick comments to point out at the get-go. I will add to this list as I progress deeper into the text over another reading.

First thing: Photograph of Temple House, I am concerned about this image as it is copyrighted. However, I'm not far from the synagogue and would be happy to snap a photo in the next week or so. Is it still standing?

Questions:

Early Years
- Is the second paragraph also cited to the Synagogue's website? It doesn't currently have a cite.
State Street
- Minor question, it is noted that another merger fell through with Temple Israel, is this because of concerns regarding the services? If so, should it be noted?

Thanks for your careful review of the article. Regarding the photograph, yes the building is still there, and it would be great if you could take some shots of it. Regarding the "Early Years", I've added citations for the material. Regarding "State Street", I must admit to being embarassed about that. If you can believe it, there were actually two Reform synagogues in Brooklyn called "Beth Israel", and they co-existed for over 60 years. The other Beth Israel was on Keap Street, and I've tried to be careful to keep them separate, but I messed up in that paragraph. I've removed the material, and for penance have added other interesting details instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

No worries. I'll go and photograph the Temple House next week, probably in the latter half. That way, we'll get a public domain shot. Never knew there was a such thing as Jewish Deco, so I've learned something here. By the way, this is over all a well-done article. So, as I go through it and add to the review, do know that: for the most part, this is done well. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your kind words, and generous offer. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

- Another question: I notice in the State Street subsection that there are a number of short paragraphs. Do you think it would be possible to merge them into longer paragraphs in order to have a more streamlined and thematic prose? Lazulilasher (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Each of the paragraphs covers a different point, so I'm not sure which ones I should merge. Please feel free to merge any you think would improve the article stylistically. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure. I'll take a deeper look tomorrow, also I should be able to get a shot of the Temple House tomorrow if all goes well and we don't get another hurricane ;) I'll leave a note soon. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, it rained today. I'm mainly concerned about the non free use image, so as soon as I get that up and go over the article one more time, this should pass GA. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Checklist edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

1. Well written?: The article is well-written enough to satisfy that good article criterion (the prose is clear). Article complies with MOS layout guidelines.

2. Factually accurate?: Cited to WP:RS/WP:V sources throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: Absolutely. Great job providing coverage on a structure known mainly at a local level. Excellent work, and I commend that you weren't satisfied with just a stub.

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes, the article is written in a neutral point of view.

5. Article stability? Yes, appears to be only 1 main editor.

6. Images?: All images are licensed properly or in the public domain. There was one image of the Temple House that was not, however I took the liberty of walking over to the synagogue and making a public domain photo. The old shot is tagged {{di-replaceable fair use|old image=yes|date=September 13 2008}}.

All in all, good job. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 06:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I must second that, impressive work - again - I'm impressed by your devotion to the constant improvement of Wikipedia!--David Igra (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Diversity edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

In the name of diversity, is it really appropriate to run this article as TFA only about two months after Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes? Lampman (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was going to say, avoiding the appearance of impropriety on front page features, especially on the subject of divisive issues like religion, may pay off in the long run. Then again, I suppose we get Christian stuff at least once a month. 208.54.4.61 (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the official waiting period on Wikipedia for making a temple TFA is 48 days, 11 hours and 23 minutes. So in my meaning it is quite allright.

Jokes aside, when in your mind, would it have been appropriate, as you say? As soon as I saw this featured article I knew that at least someone was going to have a reaction in this direction considering the awkward and somewhat distasteful "discussion" that followed the Baith Israel Ashei Emes being the TFA. --David Igra (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know nothing about that; Wikipedia shouldn't be censored on content. I just think TFA should be a venue for displaying the diversity of Wikipedia's articles. Two articles that are essentially variations on the same very peripheral subject, displayed just a few weeks apart, do not do that. How long? I guess that's just a matter of good, sound judgement, which recently has been in short supply at TFA. Lampman (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You'd have to speak the the people in charge of putting stuff on the Main Page; I had no idea it was going to be there. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

No criticism of you, great article! Lampman (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

But in your mind, this was too short a period? However, you don't suggest anything else other than that the people in charge of the TFA have poor judgement. Well, that's not very constructive is it?--David Igra (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Was your question addressed to me or to Lampman? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

To the Lampan who raised the issue of the time period being too short and that the people in charge of the TFA had poor judgement. --David Igra (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congregation edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Could we have an explantation of what a congregation is, please? I'm surprised it's not linked. I assume it has a specific meaning in Judaism, as opposed to the general 'congregation' = gathering of people for religious purposes that is used in Christianity and other religions. Or have I got it completely wrong? Is it synonymous with synagogue? 86.137.139.118 (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you look it up on the internet, perhaps on Wikipedia! That's usually a great source of information when one is seemingly at a complete loss... --David Igra (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's a gathering of people for religious purposes, but it's typically incorporated as a non-profit organization. The congregation would elect a board of directors, who would make decisions about hiring rabbis, cantors, and other staff, and do other things that non-profit organizations do (e.g. organize programs, pay for rent or building renovations, buy buildings or construct them, etc.). Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Great job edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Impressive work - again - I'm impressed by your devotion to the constant improvement of Wikipedia!--David Igra (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Congregation Beth Elohim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Congregation Beth Elohim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Congregation Beth Elohim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Congregation Beth Elohim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Article issues edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sometimes things can "creep in" or just "fall-by-the-wayside" but if someone can take a look at two areas:

"References": There are 5 dead links. This may not seem like a lot but is approaching 5% of those listed. Sourcing and citations are a critical component of articles B-class and above and I submit an FA-class should be exemplary with reliable sourcing issues a priority.
"External links": 3 or 4 links would seem to be a sought after limit, and I could possibly see 5 with consensus, but it is likely not arguable that 7 is overly excessive. Otr500 (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic