Talk:Sunol Water Temple

older entries

Other information it would be nice to have:

• When was the temple closed to visitors?
• Does water still flow through the temple? (When I saw it in 2005, there was still water in the basin, but nothing flowing through)

According to a SF water department guy working at that location, water has not flowed through the temple since the late 70's/ early 80's. Apparently an aqueduct leading from the temple (or to it?) was in disrepair. After considering repair, it was decided instead to reroute the water. This is all unverified, 3rd hand info, so a verifiable source should be found. ike9898 14:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Visited the site and found that water is still flowing through the temple. Water source is groundwater (per water co. worker on site) and the amount varies by time of year and weather. User:67.120.200.241

• In the early days of the temple, where did the visitors come from? Mostly SF?
• Old documention on the Pulgas Water Temple that mentions the Sunol Water Temple.

Also I think the article needs a category based on its architectural style. ike9898 01:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Failed Good Article

You may wnat to add some of the info suggested by ike9898. In addition, you should fix your inline references and Inscription section. joturner 16:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I would award this article GA if the inline references are fixed to use standard ref formatting. See WP:CITE and WP:FN. (unsigned comment by User:Dewet)

Wikipedia does not have a formal standard for references. The page you directed me to says, in bolded text, "The system of presenting references in a Wikipedia article may change over time; it is more important to have clarity and consistency in an article than to adhere to any particular system." The current references are both clear and consistent. ike9898 13:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I realise that; however, there is an informal standard which a lot of articles are switching to. This involves using ref and reference tags, and it has a number of advantages (such as clearly seperating content from meta-data, and futureproofing, to a good extent). So while it isn't a hard requirement, it is my requirement for articles that I'm involved in. Somebody else may just as well come along and decide its frivolous, in which case the point is moot, but the fact that I'm agreeing with joturner is probably an indication that others may feel the same. It is not that much work, and you're welcome to ask if you need any help converting it. dewet|✉ 13:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I had thought that you had decided the GA nomination of that article failed because of the reference style. I now see that it is still on the nom list. My misunderstanding. See you. ike9898 22:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all. I was basically trying to say that the only thing preventing me from GA'ing this article is the (IMHO) broken refs; I definitely won't fail it for that reason. Consider it a neutral, leaning to support vote :) dewet|✉ 22:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Promoted

I have edited the article to use <ref>xx</ref> <references /> format, it allows for changes to the references without major edits due to auto numbering. This method is the preferred format being requested during FAC. Also a couple of minor layout adjustments. Congratulations to editors of this article Gnangarra 14:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. A real improvement. ike9898 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks indeed — I know what hard work it is... Well done to all involved; this article deserves its GA promotion. dewet|✉ 20:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible info to fit in article

According to a newpaper article (Schrader, Barry. Sunol Water Temple not the usual watershed. Tri-Valley Herald 04/06/2006), the temple replaced "a 'water shed' which was just a simple wooden barn-like structure at the site." I would prefer to see this fact independently confirmed however because this newspaper article was full of errors. ike9898 13:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Later contacted this journalist and discovered his article was based two secondary sources. The following week in his column, he corrected mistakes I pointed out to him and cited this Wikipedia article. ike9898 15:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

References to seek

• San Francisco Water- a quarterly journal published by Spring Valley Water Company (Vol 1, No 1 (Jan 1922) through Vol 8, No 3 (Jan 1930))
• The Architect and Engineers of California Pacific Coast States (8,9,10,12) Vol 24, April 1911, No 3
• The Work of Willis Polk and Co
• O'Day, Edward F. 1922. The architecture of the water temple at Sunol. The Architect and Engineer, September, 82-85. (I believe that this was a publication out of San Francisco; Bancroft library at UC Berkeley has a copy)

GA review

An intiative was launched by a group of users involved in the development of the Good Articles project with the goal to ensure that all Good Articles are held to a high standard, and that all current Good Articles conform with the current quality criteria. This review has the aim to establish how well this article complies with them. They will be listed in italics, one by one, and review comments will be put below in normal type.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

Reads OK. One gripe I have is about the use of the word "watershed" - I am accustomed to it meaning the whole drainage basin, which would mean to me that the SVWC effectively owned everything, land and other real estate, in the valley. I guess this refers to the water sources only - and could they "own" them, or did they simply have the exclusive right to their exploitation? I would also rethink the syntax of some sentences - the first sentence in the history section would be much more clear and provide a better into if it started with "since mid-19th century". The last paragraph coul start with "The city of San Francisco which owns (blah blah) authorized...".

I must say I've read Good Articles that were more involving and somehow seemed better with regards to that, but this one passes this criterium anyway.

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

OK too - the article is short enough not to require any elaborate structuring. Still, I believe the inscription could be better formatted, perhaps using one of the quotation templates. I would put the Pulgas Temple in see also after a bullet.

Lead section, though, might have been better - I don't feel too well with the Temple being described as "unusual structure". I guess this is a cross between a rotunda or gazebo and some element in the water supply system (I hope somebody more knowledgeable would be able to find a name). Some elements of the description could perhaps go into the body of the article.

(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline:

I am not an expert on that, and there are other, more important issues here, so excuse me for not reviewing the article thoroughly for that. Nevertheless, I see that references are put before punctation, and they should appear after. I am also not sure whether linking all years is proper.

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

I don't have problems with that, but this is because perhaps due to my interest in architecture. I would try to link words like "pavilion", "conical", "girder" and "water main".

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

Discussed below.

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required;

A class above most GAs now! It was promoted sometime ago, but still conforms even with the latest guidelines, rife with inline citations for almost all of the article. As a sidenote, I can only say that they might benefit from using citation templates, and the citations might be converted on the occasion of moving them after punctuation.

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

I do believe so, though I have a few remarks - the "SFPUC History" link is down, it would be good to find an archived copy somewhere.

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

Everything seems well referenced, though the lead section is suspiciously missing inline citations - I hope this was simply overlooked and there is nothing there that couldn't be referenced to at least one of the sources. The discussion on the talk page seems to indicate editors took great efforts to ensure factual accuracy.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

I guess so, I have to trust the editors on that, but I believe they can be relied on.

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

No problems here, a very well balanced article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

I guess the only place where any controversies could arise is where the reasons to build the temple were explained, and I believe this is done well.

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

See above.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

Last edit in June - seems more stable than the Temple itself ;)

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

Alright with me.

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

Well, it does not and for the current size of the article there seems to be just enough images.

Overall, it is a really good article, and the excellent usage of inline citations is very heartwarming :D I also highly appreciate the efforts to make an article on this seemingly minor subject really accurate and high quality. All the reservations I have listed above are pretty minor, and are not reasons for delisting per se, though if I was reviewing this article as a new nomination, I would have put it on hold to wait until they would be rectified.

I guess they are all pretty minor, so it is not that much work to be done, but their sheer number makes me pass it with a bit mixed feelings. As the article is to undergo another review to confirm its GA status, I hope that by that time all of the above would be fixed so that the other reviewer would have a clearer conscience passing :D - Bravada, talk - 23:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Addressing comments from GA review

• re:1a I think that this company actually did own the real estate, not just the water rights. This issus might be resolved by the map in the article. The red portions are "lands owned in fee" by the company. Not entirely sure what that means, but the map clearly differiates these for the lands over which it just has "ripain rights". ike9898 18:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• re: 2c I can't find an archived copy, so I'm not sure how to treat this reference. It was a valid source that was used in writing this article. But of sourse now the url is dead. Leave the reference the way it is but drop the link? ike9898 00:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I found a section the talks about how to deal with this situation [1], and was able to get a live link to an archived copy. ike9898 01:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to thank me, my pleasure :D I am happy to see somebody working on the article further! As concerns your response to point 1a, you might have cleared the situation a bit to me, but not to the other readers, unfortunately :( Moreover, I also do not know what "in Fee" means (I even actually don't know what "ripain rights" might be). You might consider getting some other users interested in this period of Californian history to help you establish how it was, but I certainly recommend rephrasing this statement so that it would become apparent that it meant owning land along rivers and streams (not the entire watershed probably, as quite a large area of what is probably the watershed is not marked by any color on the map).

I just realized the article refers to "Alameda County watershed". I was accustomed to waterhsed referring to a water run or a body of water, and since Alameda County is neither of them, I am quite concerned whether such use of the term is appropriate. Bravada, talk - 01:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying for anyone with questions about the source:

"Owned in fee" is a very formal way of stating that they own the land, as opposed to renting or being granted a time-limited use of it, and presumably have access to all water coming from it.

Riparian rights in this case means that they own the use of at least some of the water from those lands or flowing through those lands; although riparian is technically the wrong term for it, it's commonly used for prior-appropriation as well. (Real "riparian" rights means that water must be used at the source, and not transferred.)

Alameda Creek (not County) is a watershed, with its sink being the lower Bay.

Hopefully that clears things up. I will make that last edit. Foxyshadis^(talk) 03:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Sunol Water Temple/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Ok, I am happy for this to keep GA status, I fixed two dead links. I would suggest that an appropriate infobox is added to the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Random Trivia

This was used for filing during the Mythbuster's myth "Arrow Machine Gun" S9E5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sargund (talk • contribs) 11:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yun Gee

If you have any information on the artist that painted the ceiling of this structure, please check the article. At the moment, it is linked to the article of an artist who would have been 4 years old at the time of construction. It seems possible that there are two different artists with the same name, or possibly that the paintings were added years later, after construction of the temple. Ike9898 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)