Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Stanford Memorial Church/archive1

Close paraphrasing problems in the article

I have analyzed the "History" and the first half of the "Architecture" sections. Below are examples of areas where I think that the article fails to sufficiently paraphrase its sources. If necessary, I can go through the entire article, but I think that these examples will help the editors figure out what needs to be fixed. Awadewit (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit, I'd really appreciate it if you went through the entire article. I may be too close to be effective at catching close paraphrasing. Thanks again. --Christine (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. It may be a few days, though. It is finals right now - lots of grading! :) Awadewit (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Example 1

Wiki: Camerino did not evaluate the damage until 1913, but he had saved the original drawings in Venice and was able to remove and re-fabricate the chancel mosaic, and recreate the entire exterior mosaic."

Source: "[I]t wasn't until the fall of 1913 that Mr. Camerino arrived from Venice to evaluate the damage to the mosaics. Fortunately, the original drawings had been preserved in Italy; and although the entire chancel mosaic had to be removed and re-fabricated and the exterior mosaic had to be totally recreated, the project was completed by 1917."

Analysis: This is a gray area. The structure of this passage is already similar so the question becomes, how distinctive is the wording? Words such as "evaluate", "refabricate", and "recreate" seem distinctive to me, so I would urge that this section be rewritten to avoid copying both the structure and the diction. However, I reiterate that this is a gray area and others may see this differently. Awadewit (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

To be safe, then, I went ahead and rewrote this paragraph as well. I kept the words listed above, though (except I replaced "evaluate" with "appraise"), but I think that it's reworded sufficiently. --Christine (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Example 2

Wiki: "Jane Stanford placed the building in the center of the long middle range of the campus' inner quad area, which is the focal point that terminates the long axis from Palm Drive."

Source: "Set into the middle of the long southern range of the Inner Quad, the church became the focal point terminating the long axis from Palm Drive."

Analysis: This passage copies both the structure and the diction of the source and needs to be revised. Words such as "focal point", "terminate", and "long axis" are distinctive and grant the source originality. We cannot copy this passage, claiming it is non-creative. (Non-creative would be something like "It is in the middle of the campus.") Awadewit (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Have rewritten. --Erp (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

And I have made some more changes, including moving it to the beginning of the paragraph. --Christine (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Example 3

Wiki: "The Stanfords were, for their day, "open-minded ecumenicalists",[9] so they stipulated in the university's original charter that a church built on campus should be a "nondenominational—if essentially Protestant—house of worship"".

Source: "The Stanfords were both deeply believing WASPs, but they were also, for their day and class, open-minded ecumenists, respectful of Catholics and even Jews"..."

Analysis: This passage quotes one phrase ("open-minded ecumenicalists") but not another ("for their day"). Note also that the Wikipedia articles leaves out the idea of class, which is crucial here. I would rewrite this sentence and include the idea of class as well. Awadewit (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Have rewritten: "They were deeply spiritual and religious, and for their day and social standing, "open-minded ecumenicalists",[9] so they included in the university's original charter that a church built on campus should be a "nondenominational—if essentially Protestant—house of worship".[9]" --Christine (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Example 4

Wiki: "In 1946, Merrimon Cuninggim, a visiting chaplain at Stanford Memorial Church, criticized the dearth of resources available to Stanford students to help them nurture their faith and the few academic courses offered in the study of religions."

Source: "He not only deplored the dearth of facilities supporting student religious life but also the lack of regular courses in the academic study of religion except for one in comparative religions."

Analysis: While copying the structure of this passage is probably acceptable since Cuninggim is criticizing two things, we shouldn't copy distinctive words such as "dearth" without putting them in quotation marks. This is, again, a gray area, however, since it is a single word. Awadewit (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Example 5

Wiki: "Cuninggim also charged that compared to other prominent US universities, Stanford had the least adequate religious policy."

Source: "Despite its encormous opportunity, Cuninggim charged, Stanford had the least adequate policy toward religion of any reputable university the United States."

Analysis: The structure and wording is very similar. Occasionally such similarities aren't a problem, but if an article develops a pattern of such similarities (as this one seems to be doing), then I would suggest that rewording these examples becomes imperative. Awadewit (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So I re-worded this paragraph as well. Regarding "dearth", I took the easy way out and quoted it. --Christine (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Example 6

Wiki: "The base of the church's main elevation displays carved foliage and decorative patterns, surrounded by sculpted cherubim. (This motif continues inside the church, in the mosaics that are featured above the nave's round-headed windows.) Above the base rises a broad gable, with a large quatrefoil window in the center, flanked by several windows on both sides. Mosaics surround both sides of the gable. The mosaic adorning the exterior of the church's north facade, created by Paoletti, depicts "an indefinite biblical scene"[21] originally called "Christ Blessing the People". The mosaic popularly gained the name "The Sermon on the Mount", although Stanford University historian Richard Joncas states that the mosaic does not depict the scene described in the Gospel of Matthew. It measures 84 feet (26 m) wide at the base and 30 feet (9.1 m) in height. At the time of its completion, it was the largest mosaic in the US. After the 1906 earthquake, the facade was rebuilt with a "classical round-head window that more grandly restates the smaller flanking, articulated openings"."

Source: "Beginning with the arches along the quad, its most luxuriant, the main elevation of the church displays carved foliation and decorative patterns lightened by sculpted cherub heads along its base (a motif continued in mosaic on the in the interior, above the round-headed windows of the nave). Above, the broad gable was carpeted with mosaic around a large quatrefoil window flanked by a series of smaller round-headed windows, where Coolidge had proposed only the central stained-glass window, a recurrent Mission element. The facade mosaic by Antonio Paoletti, a Venetian genre painter, depicted an indefinite biblical scene described in a December 1900 contract as Christ Blessing the People. Although the mural became popularly known as the Sermon on the Mount, scholars agree the mosaic does not represent that scene from the Book of Matthew. Following the 1906 quake the facade was rebuilt with a classical round-headed window that more grandly restates the smaller flanking, arcuated openings.":

Analysis: This is the most serious example that I found. This entire block of text is very closely paraphrased and, at times, copied directly; the order of the details, the details themselves, the syntax, and the diction are all copied from the source. I would suggest finding several descriptions of the church and working from them. Overreliance on one source has led to this problem, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't think "overreliance on one source" is the problem, since this article has plenty of sources. I think that the problem lies with the lack of writing skill of its main editor. (That would be me!) I'm still learning about how to be a better writer, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate the mentorship and tutoring of editors like you and Scartol. I haven't touched this problematic section because as per the discussion on the main project page, I think that I need to go back and add more information about the mosaics and the windows and the architecture. In other words, it needs a complete overhaul, at least of the "Architecture" sections.

I should have been clearer. I mean "overreliance on one source in this passage". This entire paragraph is based on one source. If it had been based on several sources, it is unlikely that a problem of this magnitude would have occurred. Your hard work and dedication to improvement are excellent, by the way! Awadewit (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope this is helpful. Awadewit (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Thanks. --Christine (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)