Wikipedia:Peer review/Stanford Memorial Church/archive1

Stanford Memorial Church

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been expanded greatly to the point that I believe that it has the potential for FAC. There has been a great deal of research done on this article in the past several months. There is a surprisingly large amount of sources about this special church on the Stanford University campus. It's a beautiful building with an intriguing history. (Yes, I'm using all the peacock terms here that I couldn't use in the article.) A few editors have worked tirelessly on this article, but it could use some extra eyes, especially by experts in architecture. There are very few FAs about church buildings, so the improvement of this article will make an important contribution to the encyclopedia. Thanks, Christine (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Memorialchurch.jpg - Note that the image claims to be sourced from a website which claims copyright for the photographer. The user who uploaded the image also claims to be the photographer releasing those rights under CC2.5. Thus, we have conflicting information. You need to email the photographer and try to get permission to use the photo through OTRS.

Done. I suspect that the webpage isn't necessarily "conflicting," but that the photographer simply listed his personal webpage. As the source of the image, I would think that he could make the edit himself, and state more clearly that it's his webpage. So I've left a message on his talkpage requesting that he do that. The trouble, though, is that he hasn't contributed to WP since 2007, so I emailed him as well. --Christine (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

They really are conflicting - the two licenses are different. "Copyright to the photographer" (state on the website) is different than CC2.5, which allows sharing and remixing (see here). Awadewit (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Memchu.svg - We need more details about the "Church brochure" this is based on. We need the complete publication information, the way we would for any other source.

I added the link to the image page, and then added the source to the image in the article. Easily enough done, since the brochure was already used a few times in the article. --Christine (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, am I just blind? I don't see a sketch of the layout of the church in the brochure. Awadewit (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are. The layout is in the center of the brochure, to the left of the angel mosaic. --Christine (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. When I open it with Ghostview, no little layout shows up. When I open it with KPDF, it does show up. Weird. Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note that all of the stained glass windows are subject to copyright - they are not covered under freedom of panorama in the US. Please make sure that the designer's name and death date is listed on each one. That way we can establish the correct copyright tag.

Done. The first window in the article was the only one I had to change. A, could you please go back and make sure the copyright tags are correct? I asked you because you're the image guru, and I want to make sure that I don't mess it up and do it incorrectly. Thanks. --Christine (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the gallery of images would be better on Commons. I don't think that it adds all that much to the article.

I respectfully disagree. As per previous discussions, galleries seem to be the convention in this sort of article. Perhaps it's a matter of perspective, but it personally makes sense to have images of buildings and architecture, since no amount of description substitutes for actually seeing the thing. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it, but as I've demonstrated in the past, I'm willing to have my mind changed if the arguments are persuasive enough. --Christine (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the top row of images is not particularly enlightening. So, for example, the top two repeat each other and the arch detail and the dome are not very good images, so they do not tell the reader much. The stained glass windows are better, but they are hard to see at thumbnail size. Awadewit (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll review the rest of the article later. Awadewit (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review! --Christine (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit This was an enjoyable article to read. In general, I think it is well-written and complete. I've listed a few places where I think it could be expanded (if the sources are available) and copyedited, but overall, it is very impressive!

• The Stanfords had intended that a church become "the centerpiece of the university complex",[6] but being "open-minded ecumenicalists",[7] they stipulated in the university's original charter that a church built on campus should be nonsectarian but "essentially Protestant" - This sentence is confusing - if they were ecumicalists, why did they want the church to be Protestant?

Protestants vary widely in practices. According to one of my sources (unfortunately a person so I would have to get him to give me written sources and there is the problem that they might well be raw archival material [and there is the problem on how much I could impose upon him]), Jane Stanford did try to get the Catholics involved but they would not at that time participate in ecumenical services. My source also states that she tried to get a Catholic seminary at Stanford but that fell through given the conditions she wanted (instead Saint Patrick Seminary, Menlo Park was set up). --Erp (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, I went back to the source and improved the quote. I think that Erp is correct; the Stanfords believed that Christianity is inclusive (as opposed to exclusive), and the church and their example bears that out. Remember, MemChu is a Christian church, so it would have all the traditions and trappings of that kind of building. Later on, there's a quote from Scotty McLennan about that—the wonderful contradiction of the church being open to all faiths and religions, but how worshippers are confronted with the open arms of Christ, right there on the north facade. I just love that, on a deeply personal level. Oh, and btw, a very good friend of mine attended St. Pat's.--Christine (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The new quote is clearer. Awadewit (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've copyedited the first paragraph of "Influence", but I still don't like some of the wording. You might want to go over this paragraph again. Some of the sentences are a bit wordy.

I had a go at it, but perhaps someone else can see what they can do with it.--Christine (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• What happened between the 1960s and 1990s? The "Influence" section jumps a bit there.

I know, I know. The sources are quiet about that period of time. There is, however, some info about that "missing period" in the "Past deans" section. --Christine (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• There is, of course, a lot of meaning behind the cruciform structure for a church. There are reasons why particular parts of the church are located in particular parts of the cross. Do your sources explain this? It would be good to include. (Congregation sits at the "body", priests are at the "head" - it is essentially an authoritarian design.)

Just checked, and no, the sources are quiet about this. The design was based upon many cathedrals in Europe, and upon Trinity Church, Boston. The cruciform design is traditional and done throughout history. --Christine (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be worth integrating some basic architectural sources that explain the symbolism of this kind of church design? Awadewit (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's already a link to "cruciform", in the first paragraph: Coolidge included a cruciform structure measuring 190 feet (58 m) long and 150 feet (46 m) wide, which included the clock and bell tower with an 80-foot (24 m) spire. Would that be enough? --Christine (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if your sources comment on the proliferation of design elements that come in three's (which must represent the Trinity).

Again, this is due to the Boston church, and also again, this is a design element traditional in church architecture. --Christine (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See above. Awadewit (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I dunno about this. I've just done some brief research about three-fold design elements in church architecture, but I haven't been able to find anything useful. I visited Trinity Church's webpage, and they had nothing about it. All the sources about MemChu are also quiet about it. I have a feeling it's one of those things that's so obvious it doesn't need mentioning. Of course, I'm not a church architectural expert, so take this with a grain of salt, please. Personally, I don't think that this kind of discussion would add anything substantial to the article, since the commentators about MemChu don't think it's important, either. --Christine (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Can you get a picture of the Last Supper mosaic and compare it to this? That would be an interesting side-by-side comparison to have in the article.

I might be able to do this; however, getting close to the mosaic is a bit tricky (the chancel is usually roped off). Going by memory, the Stanford mosaic is lighter with a lot more gold.--Erp (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Erp, that would be great. Didya all know that Erp is my personal researcher, at least for MemChu? ;) --Christine (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could go and say you are doing it for Wikipedia? Tell them about how many page hits the article gets. Tell them how many it would get on the main page, if it were featured. Perhaps they will donate images to Commons. Tell them it would be good advertising! Let's think big. Awadewit (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I might be able to do something but I believe the deans don't have authority to make official pictures available under wiki approved licenses (copyright is owned by the University) so it would have to be unofficial pictures. My major obstacle is I don't have a camera. I am aware of one wikipedia writer who has close connections in the church and who does have a camera who might be interested in helping out. Personally I think a picture of a pair of mosaics depicting a patriarch/matriarch couple (e.g., Abraham and Sarah) and so showing Jane Stanford's attitude towards women would also be good; those however are best seen in the balconies which are closed off except during really big events.Erp (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

While we're making photo requests, I think that a pic of one of the organs (best choice, the Fisk-Nanney) would be a great addition to this article. Even one with Morgan posing with it; then we could also put it on his bio page. --Christine (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• How come the gallery has pictures of the windows but not the mosaics?

The short answer is, because that's all the pictures we have available. I would love to be able to include those pics. Erp, hint hint! ;) Seriously, though, there are all kinds of pics of the images out there, mostly on Stanford's Office for Religious Life, and the Hall book does a good job at describing them. --Christine (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Morgan also claims that the instruments are "extremely fun to play, regardless of what the situation is" - What does that last bit mean - "regardless of what the situation is"?

My guess would be whether he is practicing, playing for the usual congregation of about a 100, for a wedding, or for a packed church at Christmas or Easter but that is just a guess.--Erp (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Right again! That's a direct quote from Morgan, and the source doesn't explain what it means. I have a feeling that it's musician-speak. I vote for keeping it in, but if the consensus is that we remove that part of the quote, then we'll go ahead and do it. --Christine (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See, I interpreted it totally differently. I was thinking "he likes to play there, no matter what religion is worshipping". Perhaps we should take it out, since it is unclear. Awadewit (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, taken out. --Christine (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder if it would be possible to get a clip of someone playing on one of the organs? That would be cool. If you can get a recording with the proper licensing, I can put it into the correct OGG format for Commons/Wikipedia.

Not sure. There are a couple of youtube but they probably aren't licensed right. on the Murray-Harris and another on the Murray-Harris. Robert Huw Morgan also has a few examples at youtube. We can link to those if nothing else.--Erp (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Morgan doesn't have any recordings. Would you be able to put a YouTube video on OGG? Morgan's examples on YouTube are really cool and fun to watch; he plays the stops in his bare feet. It's too bad we can't include that, but there are no sources that state that, other than OR. This article already links Morgan's webpage that lists these videos. Would we be able to link YouTube directly? --Christine (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to check on this. Awadewit (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about OTRS? We could request Morgan to release the videos under a Creative Commons license? Awadewit (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I know very little about OTRS, or how to use it to get the videos. Would you mind either tutoring me, or handling this, A? --Christine (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to write to Morgan himself. There is a lot of helpful advice at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and some sample requests here. Awadewit (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, and for the links. I've just sent an email to Morgan making this request. --Christine (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing this article at FAC in the near future. Awadewit (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and thanks for the review. Ya know, I used to think there was no way that this could ever get to FAC, but then Erp came up with some research that made it all possible. The last thing I thought when I started on this article was that it'd get even this far. There are some deficiencies that can't be helped, considering the resources out there, but it's remarkable the amount of stuff out there about this church. Goes to show what can be done with tenacity and collaboration! --Christine (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - and that is what makes wiki wonderful. :) Awadewit (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)