Wikipedia:Peer review/Princeton University Chapel/archive1

Princeton University Chapel

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is currently a GA, and I'd like some feedback before trying what would be my first FAC.

Thanks, Lagrange 613 05:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This looks generally impressive and well-researched in terms of detail, but there are numerous issues (some trivial, others less so) that need attention.

Repetition of terms in first line: you could probably get rid of one "Princeton"
No need to give the present-day values in lead, as they are given in the article.
What source are you using that provides these present-day values?

The article used {{inflation}}, which gets values from the U.S. Consumer Price Index. Since this may not reflect changes in chapel-building labor and materials accurately, I've removed references to present-day values. Lagrange 613 20:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessary to add "USD" to the $ sign; this can be asumed in an article on an American subject.
What are "opening exercises"?

Apparently, just a Princeton thing. Removed from lead. Lagrange 613 20:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"at the time is was built" in lead
"the present chapel and McCosh Hall stand today" - you don't need "present" and "today"
I'd advise against using "as well" as a prose emphasiser; it's inelegant.
Example of clumsy construction: "Charles Connick, Henry Lee Willet of the studio that would become Willet Hauser, the Philadelphia-based stained glass artist Nicola d'Ascenzo, and several others contributed to the stained glass windows." It is not clear what you mean by "contributed to"; does it mean contributed to the design? I suggest rephrasing along the lines: "Among those who contributed to the design of stained glass windows were Charles Connick, Henry Lee Willet (later of the Willet Hauser studio), and the Philadelphia-based stained glass artist Nicola d'Ascenzo".
"Hibben led the dedication ceremony that same year" seems a little terse. I imagine that the dedication was quite an event, with press coverage etc, so is it not possible to say more? Like, for example, the actual date?
The sudden jump in the History section to he 1960s and Martin Luther King is disconcerting. Is there nothing to be said in the 30-odd years after the dedication? And then a 40-year jump to 2000.
"then-Dean" is ugly and awkward. Just call him the Dean
"The only precedent for a university chapel of this size was King's College Chapel, and only a small part of that chapel was used regularly." Why the past tense?
Exterior and interior description: it would greatly help readers to understand these sections and visualise the chapel in its surroundings, if there was some kind of plan available. References to "north side", "western end", etc are not very useful unless one has an idea of the complete picture. Is it possible to find and use such a plan?
Some of the linking is odd. There is an unnecessary link to pelican, followed by a piped link to the same page from "religious symbol". I'd say that the single link you need is thus: religious symbol.
On occasion I found it a little tiresome to have to keep using links to understand what was being said. For example; "A sculptor who worked on the chapel during its construction placed small carvings of his face and Cram's at the bottoms of crockets flanking the main entrance". It would have been useful to at least have the information that a crocket is a decorative stone feature. There are other similar instances.
Why are we saying "as of 2008" when we are almost in 2012? It makes the article seem already out of date.
What does "at the crossing" mean? ("78.5 feet (24 m) high at the crossing")
The phrase "burned to the ground", used in the History section, should not be repeated verbatim in the "Interior" section
Perhaps a brief sentence could be added on the significance of the USS Princeton, rather than relying on a link (to a decidely inferior article).
Don't link "oak". "An oak made pulpit" would read better as "A pulpit made from oak", or perhaps just "An oak pulpit"
"re-opening" recital? Re-opening of what?
The latter parts of the article are decidely listy, with three separate bullet-pointed lists. I don't actually see the need for any of these, and feel they could each be absorbed into standard prose. I also think that the use of bolding in these lists is contrary to MOS.
Historical point: perhaps most or all US readers will know who Adlai Stevenson II was, without further identification, but in Europe, unless you are about 75 years old you won't have a clue. So a few descriptive words would be most helpful
Does the issue of "relative size" really warrant a dedicated section of the article? I would have thought that this entirely unimportant information could be buried somewhere, if indeed it requires mention at all.
Page ranges in refs should use ndashes, not hyphens
Why are access dates given in British format?
The link on commencement goes to a disambiguation page

Lack of time has prevented me from giving the second part of the article the same level of scrutiny as I gave the first half, so a further careful prose check is advisable. As I am not able to watch individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talk page if you wish to raise questions arising from this review, or if you'd like me to look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'm working through the items one by one, but real life forces me to do them in batches. I'm up to the point about the dedication ceremony. I've commented above only to answer questions or say something other than "Done, thanks". Lagrange 613 20:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]