This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an ambitious article by a brand new editor which raises a number of issues.
It is reasonably well written and readable. Aside from a little drama:
there's little to change here. I'm a sucker for stained glass, so the photographs add considerable interest. The article is largely historic, rather than being a sales piece for the church. It is, at first blush, well referenced, although more than half of the refs are internal documents and most of the rest are a local history that doesn't speak to current notability.
Author It has one author, User:Zion UCC. That raises several issues:
This is an old and interesting church. There are, of course, many old and interesting churches and it's not at all clear that this one passes our test for notability WP:Notability and WP:ORG. If I had first seen it as a paragraph or two, I would have hung a deletion tag ( WP:AFD) on it on those grounds. Although the length of the article and the effort that went into it should not affect that decision, it inevitably does, so it's harder to take that action at this stage. As noted above, most of the 36 citations are either internal or old; in fact, none of the external references speak to current notability.
If this were a commercial organization, I would add {{ afd1}} immediately on the grounds that an article about a commercial organization written by that organization is not acceptable. Should we cut some slack for a church? WP:NOTADVERTISING
Eleven of the twenty stained glass images are explicitly described as pre-1923 and therefore public domain. The balance may well be copyright violations. Note that the issue here is not the photographer's rights, which are explicitly waived, but the rights of the creator of the glass, which the photographer cannot waive. The photographs of the mosaic also probably fall into this category.
The lists of leadership and of the founders probably violate policy against lists. The photographs, while well done, may violate the rule against image repositories WP:NOTREPOSITORY and be better handled with a {{ Commonscat}} tag.
I'm not sure where I come down. On balance, I'd probably let the article stand, after resolution of the minor issues and the copyright questions, but others may feel differently.Jim - Jameslwoodward ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The third paragraph in the History section tells us that Hager gave the land to the church. The sixth paragraph says that the church purchased it from his estate for a nominal price and a rent. The second paragraph of the Cemetery section says he gave it. Which is it?Jim - Jameslwoodward ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an ambitious article by a brand new editor which raises a number of issues.
It is reasonably well written and readable. Aside from a little drama:
there's little to change here. I'm a sucker for stained glass, so the photographs add considerable interest. The article is largely historic, rather than being a sales piece for the church. It is, at first blush, well referenced, although more than half of the refs are internal documents and most of the rest are a local history that doesn't speak to current notability.
Author It has one author, User:Zion UCC. That raises several issues:
This is an old and interesting church. There are, of course, many old and interesting churches and it's not at all clear that this one passes our test for notability WP:Notability and WP:ORG. If I had first seen it as a paragraph or two, I would have hung a deletion tag ( WP:AFD) on it on those grounds. Although the length of the article and the effort that went into it should not affect that decision, it inevitably does, so it's harder to take that action at this stage. As noted above, most of the 36 citations are either internal or old; in fact, none of the external references speak to current notability.
If this were a commercial organization, I would add {{ afd1}} immediately on the grounds that an article about a commercial organization written by that organization is not acceptable. Should we cut some slack for a church? WP:NOTADVERTISING
Eleven of the twenty stained glass images are explicitly described as pre-1923 and therefore public domain. The balance may well be copyright violations. Note that the issue here is not the photographer's rights, which are explicitly waived, but the rights of the creator of the glass, which the photographer cannot waive. The photographs of the mosaic also probably fall into this category.
The lists of leadership and of the founders probably violate policy against lists. The photographs, while well done, may violate the rule against image repositories WP:NOTREPOSITORY and be better handled with a {{ Commonscat}} tag.
I'm not sure where I come down. On balance, I'd probably let the article stand, after resolution of the minor issues and the copyright questions, but others may feel differently.Jim - Jameslwoodward ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The third paragraph in the History section tells us that Hager gave the land to the church. The sixth paragraph says that the church purchased it from his estate for a nominal price and a rent. The second paragraph of the Cemetery section says he gave it. Which is it?Jim - Jameslwoodward ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)